Laserfiche WebLink
AUG 1 1984 BOOK 57 F' jE 836 <br />Assistant County Attorney Paull explained that the <br />appeal that is referred to in here is a preliminary step, <br />similar to what you would do when you appeal to the Board of <br />Adjustments. He did not feel the fact that the Planning & <br />Zoning Commission is hearing an appeal on the substantive <br />requirements of the ordinance creates a conflict because the <br />ultimate appeal regarding site plan approval is to the Board <br />of County Commissioners. <br />Commissioner Wodtke continued to express concern <br />because the Planning & Zoning Commission is advised by the <br />Planning staff, and if this goes back and forth between them <br />and the staff, he felt they will end up making the same <br />decision that staff recommends. Commissioner Wodtke <br />questioned if this might not be a cumbersome process and <br />possibly there should be somewhere else to address this. <br />Attorney Paull noted that the idea is to save the. <br />applicant from having to go through the further step of <br />going to a separate board, and Attorney Brandenburg con- <br />firmed that the intent is to streamline the procedure so <br />that the applicant does not have to go through two <br />procedures at one time and have to explain the problem all <br />over again in front of a different Board. <br />Commissioner Lyons noted that this actually is a tool <br />for the Planning & Zoning Commission which gives them an <br />opportunity to have a variance. <br />Chairman Scurlock was of the opinion that we should go <br />along with the proposed ordinance and then review it to see <br />how it functions. <br />Attorney Brandenburg suggested for these variances that <br />we refer specifically to the Board of Adjustment's criteria <br />so there would be no mistake as to what standards the Plan- <br />ning & Zoning Commission are going to apply, and Attorney <br />Paull agreed. <br />31 <br />M <br />