Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Director Stan Boling presented this matter as written in his memorandum <br />of February 7, 2007, asking the Board to look at two issues: (1) was the Metz appeal timely; and <br />(2) how does the non -conformity regulations apply in this particular case. This appeal is from The <br />Source and they listed several contentions. It was staff's opinion that the Planning & Zoning <br />Commission (P&Z) did fail in their analysis on how they applied the non -conformity regulations. <br />Staff recommended that the Board grant the appeal, overturn P&Z's decision, and allow the The <br />Source to proceed on the site as a residential treatment center, based on the post disaster criteria. <br />He asked the Board to focus on: (1) whether the Metz appeal was timely; (2) did the use cease for <br />a continued period of one year; and (3) does the post disaster reconstruction provision apply to the <br />repair, reconstruction and reuse of this facility. He asked Attorney Collins to make a presentation <br />on the "timeliness of the appeal" issue, when appropriate. He responded to questions from the <br />Board. <br />Attorney Michael O'Haire interrupted Mr. Boling objecting to any reference being <br />made to the chronology evidence, because according to him it was inaccurate. <br />Chairman Wheeler announced that it was not a public hearing, however, everyone <br />would be heard. He asked the public not to applaud, be polite and courteous, and to direct their <br />comments only on the subject matter as defined by staff <br />Steve Henderson, Esq. Collins, Brown, Caldwell, Barkett & Garavaglia, <br />Chartered, had a fourth element that had been raised in the appeal. It was what the Law would call <br />"estopped" from revoking the approval that was granted by the Community Development Director <br />on July 10, 2006. There was "estoppel" because The Source relied on that letter in taking certain <br />actions, including the purchase of the property. <br />Attorney Collins thought their argument on "estoppel" needed to be focused on the <br />period between July, when they purchased the property, and the end of October. When the appeal <br />February 13, 2007 23 <br />