06/23/2009 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Director Keating explained that most of the regulations are quantitative, and pointed out that the problem with the functional equivalent is that it is a qualitative standard, which requires a judgment. Vice Chairman Flescher thought that a wider sense of what was acceptable needed to be brought into "functional equivalency," citing as an example two businesses that might have benefitted from the application of "functional equivalency", due to trees obscuring their signage. Director Boling stated that some of the examples cited relate to pretty narrow parts of the landscape code. He discussed an emerging pattern with narrow buffers and canopy trees, and further clarified why staff supported Recommendation 1, the examination of the problem LDR's. Mr. Robinson, 315 Greytwig Rd., PSAC Committee Member, cited an instance where a permanent exception for in-store bathroom facilities had been granted at the Outlet Mall, and he noted that in some cases, a permanent exception beats the original building code. Charles Wilson, 1057 6th Avenue, opined that one cause of the County's escalating unemployment is that it is difficult for small businesses to operate in the County, and felt that today's proposal was another step towards making us a more business -friendly community. He felt that it would be better to have a high standard, allowing unique exceptions, than a lower standard without exception allowances, and urged the Board to combine staff's Recommendations 1 and 2. Brian Carman, Executive Director, IRNA, did not feel that the unemployment problem was the result of the LDR requirements. He pointed out that the County wants to move into something permanent, when the results of the temporary 90 -day variance have not yet been seen. He spoke of the difficulty of maintaining consistency and fairness from application to 25 June 23, 2009