Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 3 · column 6 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
practical” and would cause financial hardship, he contended.
“That’s not our concern. Our concern is whether we can issue a variance for this addition in the location you specified,” said BZA Chairman Lee Bird. “The standards for a variance are hard. You have to show undue hardship coming pretty close to confiscation . . . That you couldn’t make practical use of the lot.” Mr. Bird noted that the addition “would enhance the use of the lot” but without the addition, the property is still usable.
“When you built the house (in 1983), did you not intend to add to it?” asked BZA member Peter Kramer.
“Not at that point,” replied Mr. Barron, explaining that he needed the extra space in the two-bedroom house because he and his wife will soon have a child.
“Didn’t you see a family as a foreseeable thing?” asked Mr. Kramer.
“I can’t say I didn’t. . . But I didn’t have any big comprehensive plan,” Mr. Barron answered.
“I have a problem with the spirit of the ordinance in this particular case,” said Mr. Monahan. “I, as a builder, feel that there are ways this house could be added on to without violating the setback conditions.”
“The question is not whether the alternative locations are ideal or even the most economical, but whether they are possible,” Chairman Bird explained. “You located your house right at the 50-foot limit. You must have known that was the limit or you would have done it otherwise.”
Continued on page 16
94.6%