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 13 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
ture, then it must fall under multi family housing.
But with Chairman Bird describing the yard argument as a “red herring,” the majority continued tc insist that Mr. Estes's permit not be approved without a zoning amendment. “That’s the way the process is supposed to work. We find an ambiguity, and we refer it back to the body that writes the ordinance,” noted Mr. Zindel.
“I am troubled by the precedent we'd set by relying on the Planning Commission saying ‘This is wbat we intended,' ” added Mr. Gottleib, saying the Board of Supervisors has the sole authority to set land use policy and WTite zoning regulations.
“We should give the Planning Commission’s recommendation great weight, but we should not be bound by it," said Mr. Bird, holding that the BZA must interpret and apply the zoning ordinance on the basis of its own findings. “We’re responsible really to the court. We are a quasi judicial body. We are not responsible to the Planning Commission. We are not responsible to the Board of Supervisors."
“The central point is that multifamily dwelling should be redefined to include one apartment . . . My sense would be to want to approve this but I can’t. I want to see the ordinance amended so that I can," said Mr. Gottleib.
By a vote of 4-0 with Mr. Swindler abstaining, the BZA denied Mr. Estes’s application for a multi-family dwelling on the grounds that his proposal constitutes more than one dwelling on a lot and as such, is not allowed in the commercial village zone. In addition, the board suggested an ordinance amendment to allow- single unit apartments in the CV zone by special permit.
85.0%