My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/28/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
11/28/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:26 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 9:59:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/28/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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
NOV 28 1984 BooK 59 PAGE 42 <br />apparently applies to septic tanks, which is another issue here. <br />He reported that he had met with Attorney Brandenburg and members <br />of the Planning Department, and a Health Dept. official was also <br />present. Attorney Bogosian believed that the Health Dept. <br />official stated that he had no objection to this particular <br />building, as far as the septic tank installations were concerned. <br />They were given the green light to go ahead and do a new subdivision <br />plat by that group. It was not a decision by the Board, of <br />course, but it was an administrative decision, and they felt they <br />were complying with both the health laws and the planning laws of <br />the County. <br />Chairman Scurlock was concerned that staff had indicated <br />that no additional units were to be sold until this situation was <br />resolved and apparently a unit has been sold. <br />Attorney Bogosian admitted that a unit had been sold, but he <br />did not personally know of the sale at the time. His client had <br />previously contracted to sell this unit and he went ahead with <br />the contract that he had signed before being faced with these <br />problems. of course, without going ahead, he faced legal problems <br />in addition to financial problems, but that was not right and Mr. <br />Bogosian could not excuse his client except to say that he was <br />not the.agent who transferred the property as he had done on the <br />original two units.. At present, he understands from Director <br />Rymer that this building cannot be approved no matter what they <br />do and they have to go to a condominium. <br />Director Rymer defined a condominium as a structure that has <br />a roof owned by the entire building. Townhouse construction has <br />a different set of rules as townhouses are reviewed as single- <br />family dwellings, which are bought along with the land and have <br />everything that any other single family house would have with the <br />exception that they enjoy a common side yard or the party -wall <br />concept. The Building Code requires that a townhouse unit be <br />constructed in such a way that it could be pulled right out of <br />the rest of the building and stand alone as a single family <br />42 <br />- M M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.