My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/6/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
6/6/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:03:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/06/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
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
COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT THE ATTORNEY IS SAYING THAT THE <br />BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY ON THEIR OWN TO MAKE ANY INQUIRIES OF AN APPROVED <br />SITE PLAN, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THAT THE $ITE PLAN ORDINANCE <br />DOES NOT SET THIS OUT. BASICALLY IT IS A FINAL DETERMINATION ON A <br />ZONING LEVEL, AND IT IS POSSIBLE THE BOARD MAY WISH TO CHANGE THIS. <br />COMMISSIONER SOY FELT IT WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS FOR THE <br />BOARD TO LET ANYONE MAKE THEM GO THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCEDURE IF WE FELT <br />THEY DID NOT HAVE THE PROPER LEGAL INTEREST. SHE AGREED THAT IT MAY <br />BE NECESSARY TO REDO SOME OF OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS, BUT, AT THIS - <br />TIME, SHE FAVORED GOING ALONG WITH THE OPINION RENDERED BY THE ATTORNEY <br />THAT THIS APPEAL DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST, AND HOPEFULLY SOMEONE <br />WILL VOLUNTEER TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT AREAS IN THE SITE PLAN THAT DO <br />NOT APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF WE SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING IN OUR <br />MINUTES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE HAS RENDERED AN OPINION <br />THROUGH ATTORNEY CALVIN BROWN, WHICH HE HAS APPROVED. IT CAN EITHER <br />BE LEFT ON THAT BASIS, OR IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO, THEY CAN MAKE <br />THEIR OWN DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THEY THINK 11 LEGAL INTEREST" MEANS, <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE SOME ASSURANCE <br />THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HEAR THE SITE PLAN. <br />COMMISSIONER SOY DID NOT FEEL HE COULD GET SUCH AN ASSURANCE <br />AND LIVE WITHIN OUR PRESENT RULES. SHE FELT WE ARE JUST WRONG AND <br />WILL HAVE TO CHANGE THE RULES SO THAT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. <br />COMMISSIONER $IEBERT NOTED THAT THE DEVELOPER, WHO IS PRESENT, <br />CAN AGREE TO HAVE US HEAR THE SITE PLAN, AND COMMISSIONER LOY AGREED <br />BUT POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS STATED THIS DISCUSSION WAS GOING TO BE KEPT <br />JUST AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS AND THE ATTORNEY. <br />COMMISSIONER $IEBERT CONTINUED THAT IF THE ONLY AVENUE WE NOW <br />HAVE -TO HEAR THE SITE PLAN IS TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, EVEN THOUGH HE.DOES <br />NOT WANT TO GO THAT ROUTE, HE WILL VOTE TO HEAR THE APPEAL. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT HE COULD NOT BE ANY.PART OF MAKING <br />A DECISION WHICH, IN HIS OPINION, IS AN ILLEGAL DECISION FOR HIM TO <br />56 <br />JUN , 0 197e BOOK 4JU PAGE 4jX <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.