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 4 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
told the council. “It was felt that could be addressed by the special use permit process.”
Town attorney Frank Reynolds told the council that, if they approved the amendment, his interpretation of the ordinance would allow any structure to exercise the 45-foot option without adhering to the increased setbacks. “They still must get a special use permit to reduce the setbacks required in the zoning ordinance, however.”
And, he added, the council could also attach requirements for setbacks as a condition of the permit if it felt they were necessary for a particular application.
David Dickey, representing The Inn, told the council the amendment “is in the best interests of planning for the town . . . because this is a more flexible way to address any project, by the special use process. That is better for the town than any rigid formulas which force people into creative abuses.”
Mr. Dickey also pointed out the ordinance “discriminates” against businesses, because it does not allow them the option given to public buildings and private homes. “The special use permit allows input from the Town Council, the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board.”
Newbill Miller suggested the amendment be modified to require the setback match that of adjoining properties. Mr. Miller, who has been a vocal critic of the Inn’s proposed expansion, reminded the council that “the mass (of the Inn’s addition) was the concern at the public hearing. You soften building mass by requir
94.3%