7/24/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� - r Commissioner Bird then asked if they had any estimates on the landscaping, and Mrs. Carlson explained that when they originally went out for bids, they took the landscaping out because they hoped to be able to accomplish this through garden clubs and community help. Considerable discussion ensued as to finding some way to create a vehicle whereby a civic governmental type organization would be able to put up a bond for landscaping requirements. Administrator Wright felt the problem is differentiation and that we would be faced with non-profit organizations, civic groups, churches, etc., all wanting the same privilege. The Vice Chairman asked County Attorney Vitunac if there is any way to differentiate legally between this type of organiza- tion and others as it actually is an extension of county government that we don't have to pay for in a sense; although, we do contribute. Attorney Vitunac did not think any distinction based on the financial capabilities or the tax status of the organization will be good in zoning, but he noted that under Sec. 131-25, there is a variance procedure which says the applicant should go before the Planning S Zoning Board, and he did not know why that had not been used. Vice Chairman Scurlock explained that the Board has had some on-going controversy with developers who did not carry through on implementing these landscape requirements and he felt strongly, because of the problems we have had in the past, that this should come to the Board. Discussion continued in regard to having this request considered by the Variance Board, the need for a definite timeframe, the need for some type of financial security, etc., and Attorney Vitunac stated that financial difficulty is not a bona fide basis for the Variance Board to consider. Paul Domico, interested citizen, asked Mrs. Carlson if the occupancy of the new animal shelter facility will in any way 27 UL 2 4 1985 BOOK 61 �F. 672