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 14 · column 4 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Amendments
Continued from page 1
envision these being parking lots. I don’t think anyone wants to live next to a parking lot.”
Commission Chairman William Wickens said “my concern is not just what this particular lot would do. This could affect the whole town.” As one of the authors of the current zoning ordinance, Mr. Wickens added, “what we did not want was commercial sprawl into residential neighborhoods.”
The six planners voted unanimously to recommend denial of that amendment. (Planner Stewart Willis did not attend Monday’s meeting).
Mr. Wickens was alone among the planners in voicing strong objections to the ordinance to allow structures to exceed the 35-foot height limit.
He said that the exception for dwellings and public buildings was written into the ordinance because the authors had in mind that “houses are smaller, and we didn’t want to prohibit a cupola on top of a house.”
“Is this,” Mr. Wickens asked, “the direction we want to go? Toward increasing height while decreasing the setbacks — in one fell swoop?”
Mr. Reynolds reminded the planners that, even if the amendment is approved, any relaxation of the 35foot limit would still require a special use permit. That “is a powerful process. You place conditions on it then.”
To which Mr. Bailey added, “Theoretically, if someone proposed a 45-foot tall box the ARB should shoot it down — if not we should shoot them. We will just have to have trust in the government in town.”
95.3%