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 8 · column 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Planners
From Page A1
operator George Chamberlin was the first of two to speak in support of the Smiths' application. Mr. Chamberlin spoke of his success in raising Rottweilers on the property since 1987, and of the general lack of complaints from neighbors during that period. He said that he would not sell his property to anyone who would be a detriment to the neighborhood and that he was confident that the Smiths would operate a “small, quality business.”
Emiel Smet was the second and last to speak in support of the application. Mr. Smet said that he was an adjoining neighbor and that he never had a problem with Mr. Chamberlin’s kennel operation. “I can’t say that I’m not in favor,” he concluded.
Helen Dixon was the first of some ten to speak when Commission Chair Tom Junk called for comments from those opposed. Mrs. Dixon said that she was not actually in opposition, but pointed out that there was is a big difference between a private kennel and a kennel where “strange outside dogs” are brought in. They are nervous and they make noise, she added.
Amy Burnett said that she was a neighbor and “so opposed, I can’t ev6n see straight.” She spoke of the potential for problems with noise, lighting, water use and waste generation, the use of chemicals and health risks, the scenic impact, and increased traffic. She said that her biggest concern though was the “value and salability of our home.”
Others opposed to the kennel complained about the potential for problems with noise, loose dogs, a commercial business in a residential area, traffic, and the impact upon the church across Viewtown Road from the property. At the close of the public hearing, Amy Hitt presented the Commission with a petition that she said contained the sig
97.1%