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 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
mg additional setback. The mass of a 45-foot tall building right at the street is pretty harsh. One £oot additional (setback) for every foot above 35 feet is a good control. It would satisfy those who came to this public hearing.”
He said he is also concerned that the zoning ordinance’s standards for special use permits are “vague.”
“I agree,” Mayor Dean Morehouse said, “that in some situations some specific standards are in order. If we get one SUP application, we’ll probably get two: one for the height and one for reduction of the setbacks.”
Charles Eldred reminded the council that the planners had spent two months considering the amendment and had suggested no alternatives. “As they expressed it, the system ought to be trusted; since it is governed by members of the community and they have to live with the result.”
Mr. Wickens suggested the amendment could be modified to allow only a certain percentage of the building to exceed the 35-foot limit. Or, he added, the width of the street frontage of the building could be restricted. “That would eliminate the discrimination (against businesses), but would limit the scale and height to those (buildings) already in town.”
His suggested modifications failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Peter Skowronski suggested the amendment be limited to new structures, but his motion also failed for lack of a second .
The amendment was approved as submitted, with Mr. Wickens,
95.2%