Laserfiche WebLink
Board members deliberated further whether to impose stricter penalties, and the County <br />Administrator's ability to grant an estimate of cost should a deposit be required. <br />Vice Chairman Flescher suggested a $5,000.00 financial cap be placed on the assessed <br />value of any Variance that can go forward in this new regulation, and Administrator Baird <br />explained why he thought the cap could be a hindrance. <br />Chairman Davis suggested that instead of making a decision today, they evaluate this in <br />six months, which would give them an opportunity to review the process without giving free <br />reign to individuals trying to beat the system. <br />Board members continued to discuss concerns, among which was the possibility of the <br />matter being appealed to the Board of Adjustment and that Board overriding the Board of <br />County Commissioners' decision. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan remarked that the whole purpose of this is to be very responsive <br />and very flexible. He was comfortable with how it is; and said if we wanted to add something <br />where the County Administrator or his designee could require a bond to be posted at staff's <br />estimate, he would be fine with that and he did not think we need a cap, as this should be on a <br />case-by-case basis. <br />Commissioner Wheeler would rather see a cash deposit rather than a bond. <br />Attorney Collins, looking at the ordinance on pages 114-115 of the backup, which deals <br />with "Temporary suspension of compliance" and which stipulates conditions to be met, <br />suggested they could put in a sentence at the end of Section 6, stating that the County <br />Administrator or the Board of Adjustment may impose conditions such as deposits which would <br />May 19, 2009 14 <br />