2/5/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,.,A Commissioner Lyons noted that the building has met the county requirements, and if Mr. Berlin or someone else feels it does not and that there is question as to whether the building is a risk or not, they have the option of having it checked out. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to accept staff recommen- dation to take no action, as set out in Alterna- tive #1, staff memo dated January 6, 1986. - Mr. Berlin asked for the opportunity to review the answers he received from staff, and he made the following statement: , PAGE I ,,,,,.WHY WERE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED TO PARRIS & SPRINGER FOR THE PROJECT BEFORE THEY ASSUMED OWNERSHIP? ANSWER: A permit was issued one day after Springer received his deed and 5 days before Parris received his deed. THIS ANSWER PROVES THAT THE STAFF KNEW THAT SPRINGER AND PARRIS OWNED TWO PARCELS OF LAND. FURTHER: Throughout the site plan and building permit review process, and the subdivision platting process, Joseph Berlin and Gary Parris appeared together on numerous occassions during both official and un- official meetings with County Staff. WHAT THIS INDICATES IS THAT IF JOSEPH BERLIN APPEARS WITH ANYONE APPLYING FOR A PERMIT, THEY ARE RELIEVED OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY THEY ARE APPLYING FOR PERMITS FOR, EVEN THOUGH THE CODE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES WRITTEN EVIDENCE. QUESTION: WHEN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROJECT WAS TRANSFERRED TO PARRIS & SPRINGER, WHY WERE THEY NOT REQUIRED TO FORMALLY TRANSFER SITE PLAN APP ROVAL? ANSWER: When the building permit was issued, Dr Springer was the owner of a portion of the project. In addition, the building permit application was submitted in conjunction with a copy of the approved site plan, in indication that the building permit &pplicant had the owner's permission to obtain a building permit. COTDUWIENT: AGAIN WE HAVE PROOF THAT THE STAFF KNEW THAT DR SPRINGER OWNED LAND INVOLVED IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS. THE FACT THAT THE NEW OWNERS HAD A COPY OF 14RS BERLIN'S SITE PLAN DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE OWNERSHIP AND CERTAINLY DOES NOT WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE SITE PLAN TRANSFER MUST BE IN WRITING. FURTHER, THE PREVIOUS OWNERS PERMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. TO CONTINUE: Previously, at the initiation of the site plan review, process, Mary Berlin had designated Total Development Inc as agent for the project. For that reason, the staff feels that it was reasonable to accept a building permit application from an individual having possession of a copy of the approved site plan. ANSWER: THE FACT THAT MARY BERLIN USED TOTAL DEVELOPMENT INC AS HER ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTUAL FIRM DOES NOT GIVE THE STAFF THE RIGHT TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY A ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ENGINEERING FIRM WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ARCHITECT WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITE PLAN. A COMPARISON OF THE TWO SITE PLANS 33 BOOK 63 F,� c 5?2