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 6 · column 5 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
of checks and balances to enforce setback requirements.
In a letter to County Administrator John McCarthy, he claimed an eight foot encroachment of the setback requirement in Ms, Sullivan’s side yard. He also quesi tioned why there was not a variance for an expansion of the house which took place earlier. He was upset that the stairs had been completed.
In 1978, Mr. Bear had applied to build onto his house but was denied because of setback requirements, he said. So, he wondered, why should Ms. Sullivan was not be required to follow the same requirements. If Ms. Sullivan received a variance, he said, he believed he should be allowed the same consideration.
BZA member Sid Gottlieb said that he couldn’t see the owner getting off “scot free.” “I don’t see grounds for permitting a variance,” he said.
When BZA members were asked by Chairman Jennifer Matthews if they, felt Ms. Sullivan would be caused undue hardship if the variance was not approved, referring to Section 170-136 of the ordinance, all members present, which included Jennifer Matthews, Sid Gottlieb, Martin Woodard, and Alex Sharp, agreed that it would not cause Ms. Sullivan any undue hardship if she had to remove the stairs. -
93.7%