My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/22/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
3/22/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:40:06 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:09:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/22/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
0 <br />w a <br />MIGHT WANT TO APPROACH THIS A BIT DIFFERENTLY IN REGARD TO MEMBER- <br />SHIP. HE NOTED EVEN IF WE UTILIZE THEIR BOARD, WE STILL WOULD HAVE <br />TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AND GO THROUGH MAKING APPOINTMENTS, ETC, <br />COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THIS WOULD BE STRICTLY AN <br />ADVISORY BOARD. <br />MRS. RYMER STATED THAT THEY WOULD BE MAKING FINAL DECISIONS <br />UNLESS THEIR DECISION IS APPEALED, AND THEN IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE <br />CITY COUNCIL AND AFTER THAT TO THE COURTS. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON SOMEONE HAVING TO STATE RIGHT AWAY <br />4 <br />WHETHER HE IS GOING TO APPEAL OR LOSE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, MRS. <br />RYMER NOTED THAT THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY DEAL- <br />ING WITH EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHERE CONSTRUCTION NEEDS TO CONTINUE, <br />AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT MUST ACT ON THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING <br />BOARD AND, THEREFORE, NEEDS TO KNOW RIGHT AWAY WHETHER THE PEOPLE <br />INTEND TO APPEAL OR NOT. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AGREED THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR SUCH <br />A BOARD, AND THE COUNTY SHOULD WORK ON ESTABLISHING ONE, BUT NOT <br />PRECISELY AS PRESENTED, <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT MRS. RYMER'S OBJECTION <br />TO THE PRESENT ADJUSTMENT BOARD WAS THAT THEY HAVE DIFFICULTIES <br />DEALING WITH TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, AND HE FELT THE CITY'S RULING THAT <br />PEOPLE OF ANY PROFESSIONAL OR BUSINESS BACKGROUND COULD SERVE <br />WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING SUCH A BOARD. <br />MRS. RYMER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SHE WOULD PREFER THE <br />CITY AND THE COUNTY TO HAVE ONE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR MANY <br />REASONS, AND SHE SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY REVIEW THE MEMBERSHIP <br />WHEN THE CITY BOARD IS ESTABLISHED AND POSSIBLY APPOINT THAT BOARD <br />AS THE COUNTY'S BOARD. <br />IT WAS NOTED THAT THE BOARD IS.SET UP TO BE APPOINTED BY <br />THE CITY COUNCIL, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE OVERLAPPING APPOINTMENTS. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT WE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A DIFFERENT <br />BOARD IN ANY EVENT, AS HE DOES NOT FEEL THE COUNTY LIKES THE MAKE-UP <br />OF THE BUILDING BOARD AS SET UP -BY THE CITY, ESPECIALLY THE REQUIRE- <br />MENT THAT THE CITY ENGINEER BE A VOTING MEMBER. <br />12 <br />BAR 2 21979 <br />Care 34 PACE 133 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.