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 1 · column 2 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
year and requiring notice of any such division to other landowners whose property was part of the same “parent” parcel in 1962. That amendment easily won endorsement from the Planning Commissioners at their July meeting.
To address Mrs. Doares’ situation, Mr. McCarthy had also proposed that “properties deprived of the right to obtain a family division due to the approval of a sister parcel’s, family division shall be allowed one family division exception to the density requirements of this ordinance (if otherwise qualifying).” This provision received no endorsement.
Mr. McCarthy explained that the exception is intended to apply only to those who were deprived of the family subdivision option by actions which took place between December, 1986 (when the current zoning ordinance was adopted) and August, 1988 (when the amendment is expected to be enacted). Of the 40 family subdivisions authorized in that period, “distinctly less than a quarter would qualify,” for the exception, Mr. McCarthy said.
Objections — but on widely divergent grounds - came immediately from the audience.
Make it simpler and easier
“This is really getting super complicated,” said A1 Henry. “Five years down the road, when we have new board members and maybe a new zoning administrator,” factoring in the different qualifiers to determine who is entitled to a family subdivision will prove impossible without help from a lawyer, he said. “I think the easiest, fairest way would be to allow one to a child per year ... It would be a gradual thing to accomodate the children in a family as they grow up . . . It’s simple. We need to get down to where normal people can understand (the family transfer provision) and to make it fair.”
See DOARES, p. 11
89.8%