6/6/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I CONTINUED THAT HE DID NOT THINK THE PARTIES CONCERNED NECESSARILY CONSIDERED ALL OF THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE SETBACKS, BUT AGREED WE DO HAVE AN INCONSISTENCY IN OUR ORDINANCE AND IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED SIDE YARD OR FRONT YARD. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT YOU MUST LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK, WHICH WAS PRIMARILY AN AESTHETIC MATTER, AND NOTED THAT THE SAME CONDITIONS EXIST NO MATTER HOW LONG THE LOT IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE SIDE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE FELT THE FIRST PROBLEM TO ADDRESS IS WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE A LEGAL APPEAL. AFTER WE ASCERTAIN THAT, THEN WE CAN GO BACK AND ADDRESS ANY PROBLEM WE MAY HAVE WITH THE SITE PLAN. COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED HIS FIRST PRIORITY IS- THAT HE FEELS WE HAVE A DEFECTIVE SITE PLAN WE NEED TO DETERMINE HOW TO GET CORRECTED. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HIS PROBLEM IS IN THE INTERPRETA- TION OF THE LEGAL INTEREST, AND IN HIS OPINION SOMEONE WHO HAS NO LEGAL CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT AND IS NOT IMPAIRED BY THE PROJECT IS NOT A PERSON MEETING THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE ORDINANCE; COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AGREED WITH THAT AND WAS ALSO CONCERNED WITH SETTING A PRECEDENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW AN APPEAL TO BE MADE ON EVERY SITE PLAN BY SOMEONE WHO DOESNIT HAPPEN TO LIKE IT. DISCUSSION CONTINUED, AND THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF WE CAN ADDRESS A SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN THROUGH AN APPEAL. ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT SEE ANY OTHER AVENUE TO APPROACH THIS THAN THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS. HE NOTED IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO AGREE TO IT, THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT*HE TRULY BELIEVED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT HAS TRIED HIS VERY BEST TO CONFORM TO WHAT HE WAS TOLD HE WOULD HAVE TO DO. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD RATHER NOT GO THROUGH THE FORMAL APPEAL ROUTE AND BELIEVED THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD PREFER THE PROBLEM TO BE HEARD AND RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. ° 55 JUN 6 1979 BOOK ' � PAGE 430