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 16 · column 2 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
behalf of the town council, but that he felt “fairly sure” that the council would agree that the additional right-of-way is not needed.
“I don’t like it," he added, “but I think our hands are tied” by the lan. guage of the subdivision ordinance.
“I agree,” Mr. McCarthy said.
Mary Updike, who owns property adjoining Rev. Scott’s parcel, commented that “I’m not exactly opposed to this, but he says he wants to build a pond there. I’m concerned about the possible effects of overflow onto my land.”
Rev. Scott confirmed that he plans to put in a small pond to provide water for his horses, adding that “there is a pond there now when it rains . . . it's just a big mudhole.” He said that one side would be five to 10 feet from the property line, and that he planned to comply with state law. which requires that damming a stream not change the existing inflow or outflow points of the stream.
Mr. McCarthy told Mrs. Updike that the pond could be built by right, and that no permits were required. “I don’t know what protection I can offer you. I’m not qualified to determine a good pond site - and neither is the building inspector.”
Although Rev. Scott’s plat and supporting documents had been filed in the building and zoning office in late April, several members of the planning commission said that they had not heard of the request until the meeting.
“We are setting a precedent for the future,” Joyce Kramer said. “I haven’t seen it... I want to go look at the project.”
“It’s unfortunate,” Mr. Wickens agreed, “but I have not seen the ap
87.9%