Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT EARLY THIS YEAR, THE COMMISSION, <br />IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, ADOPTED A <br />FLOOD ORDINANCE WHICH ESTABLISHED IN THIS COUNTY VARIOUS AREAS IN <br />RELATION TO THE DEGREE OF PROBABILITY OF FLOODING AT THE 100 YEAR FLOOD <br />LEVEL. THIS ORDINANCE DID NOT, HOWEVER, CONTAIN A VARIANCE PROVISION. <br />HE NOTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED REQUESTS FOR <br />VARIANCES, AND THE FLOOD PROGRAM ON A NATIONAL LEVEL DOES ANTICIPATE <br />THAT THE ORDINANCE MAY PROVIDE FOR VARIANCE PROCEDURES. HE INFORMED <br />THE BOARD THAT HE HAS INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE THE RECOMMEN- <br />DATIONS FROM THE NATIONAL PROGRAM. ' <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF SOMEONE SHOULD GET A VARIANCE <br />AND SOMETHING HAPPENS, WHO IS LIABLE. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT FEEL THAT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE ANY <br />LIABILITY. HE FELT THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE PROVIDES FOR SITUATIONS OF <br />REAL HARDSHIP SUCH AS A SITUATION ON THE OCEAN WHERE PROPERTY HAS BEEN <br />SUBDIVIDED AND ON BOTH SIDES OF A CERTAIN LOT HOMES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, <br />BUT THE LOT IN QUESTION WOULD NOT QUALIFY. HE NOTED THAT THE NATIONAL <br />GUIDELINES DO ENVISION THIS PROBLEM AND TRY TO HELP OUT THE SMALL LOT <br />OWNER. <br />IN DISCUSSION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ONLY APPEAL FROM THE <br />VARIANCE BOARD DECISION IS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. <br />THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. <br />THERE WERE NONE. - <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER-SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />— -DEESM THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED -THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br />-- ON--MOT_IIIN---BY---COMMISSIONER $ I EBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />Loy, THE BOARD.UNANIMOUSLY_ADOPTEI?-ORDINANCE No. 78-41. <br />-51 <br />a�K 38 PAGE 51 <br />