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 10 · column 3 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
Board
From Page A1
property values and the fact that a water study hasn’t been completed. In addition, many individuals who spoke against the application felt that the location was inappropriate for what Ms. Harris was proposing.
Ms. Harris responded to the issue of a water study by saying that a well would need to be drilled before a study could be completed. Attorney Frank Reynolds, who is representing Ms. Harris, presented a petition with names of 87 people in favor of the proposal. He said that the access road from Pearl Lane would be for emergency vehicles only.
Reynolds argued that the proposed inn/lodge does meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He also commented that uses of the property currently allowed by the Comprehensive Plan would have a greater impact on water than what Ms. Harris is proposing.
Hampton District representative Mike Massie said that it’s possible the neighborhood will not be adversely affected, but he couldn’t get away from all of the neighbors who oppose the plan. Board Chairman “Pete” Estes commented that the site plan wasn’t sufficient, and that the impact on the neighborhood is not in line with the county codes.
County Attorney Peter Luke informed the board that the applicant has to provide sufficient evidence to pass the application. The board voted unanimously to deny Ms. Harris the special exception, due to two factors. They determined that sufficient evidence was not pre
97.4%