Laserfiche WebLink
He requested a variance to build the house as designed and emphasized the costliness of rebuilding <br />their home. <br />In response to Vice Chairman Neuberger’s question about the set back, he was <br />advised the Skirvins were looking for a 4’10” variance. <br />County Attorney Collins specified that this Board does not have the authority to <br />grant a variance. <br />County Administrator Baird explained that the Skirvins had been working on this <br />house without permits and he believed they need to follow the process as set out in our regulations. <br />The Administration had placed this item on the Board’s agenda because they have indicated their <br />desire to hear all citizens. <br />Community Development Director Bob Keating (using visual aids) explained the <br />problems concerning the entrance and the garage of the Skirvin’s house and advised that Building <br />Official Buddy Akins and Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Chief Roland DeBlois <br />were both involved in this matter. County employees are obliged to treat everyone equally and <br />require adherence to current regulations. He explained the encroachment of the house as it has <br />been designed. <br />Mr. DeBlois (using visual aids) explained the relationship of the house to the <br />property and the road; pointed out that the road in this area is actually an easement, and advised <br />what the County would permit on the property. The County does allow a property owner (with <br />damage due to a hurricane) to rebuild within the footprint of the damaged house but cannot <br />approve the new design because it is neither within the footprint nor in compliance with our <br />current regulations. <br />Commissioner Davis stressed that the Board does not have the right to allow the <br />Skirvins to build their house as it has been designed. <br />Discussion ensued and the Skirvins were directed to Planning Director Stan Boling <br />for an application for a variance as well as guidance. Mr. DeBlois explained that staff had advised <br />the Skirvins that staff could not waive a $800.00 fee for a variance application; only the Board had <br />the authority to waive the fee if the Board felt compelled to do so. <br />December 6, 2005 25 <br /> <br />