9/19/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP 19 1984BOOK 58 F� 394 Chairman Scurlock pointed out that at the meeting of September 5th Attorney Block did not take the option of postponing the matter to be heard before a full Commission and asked the County Attorney if there would be any legal problem in the Board's reconsideration of this matter. Attorney Brandenburg advised that the ordinance that was adopted that day has already rezoned this property. The ordinance has been filed with the Secretary of State and is in effect. There is really nothing for the Board to reconsider at this point. The only thing the Board can do is to start from scratch and go through the entire rezoning process again. The problem with that is that the Zoning Code says that once there has been an application filed for a rezoning on a piece of property that the County will not consider any other rezonings on it for a 12 -month period. Another problem is in establishing a precedent in that everyone who does not like the outcome of their rezoning, will be requesting another hearing for one reason or another. The third problem is that once an administrative determination has been made with respect to a zoning matter and everyone was given the opportunity to present their arguments, there is a doctrine that requires a change of circumstance that was not known about at the time in order to go back and rezone it. He, therefore, recommended that the Board not reconsider this matter. Commissioner Bird asked what would happen if the Holmes' wanted to build another structure on the land that was not included in the rezoning, and Attorney Brandenburg advised that would require an approved modified site plan which is the same process as a normal site plan approval. He explained that when the Planning staff looked at this site, they looked at how much of this parcel was actually being used or had been used in the recent past in this type 71