8/20/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AUG- 2 0 1986 BOOK 6 5 u1; F 477 staff should look into whether or not they could meet the 20' setback and further noted that Mr. Miller recommends they apply for a variance and then says there is no chance they could get one. Chairman Scurlock clarified that basically they are asking to be considered under the old standards since they felt they had made a valid attempt to meet the requirements at that time. He asked Director Keating if someone has made a sincere effort but their plan is deficient and staff realizes they are dealing with someone who is not a professional, would the Planning staff generally take the fee and then say go on back, or does staff just not accept the money or the application because of the deficiency. Director Keating advised that staff strongly encourages people not to submit if the application is deficient, but they will accept the application if they are pressed. Basically they are trying to be efficient timewise. Commissioner Bird asked if we have to ability to determine they are in fact grandfathered in, and also whether their plan at least meet the requirements of the old ordinance? Attorney Vitunac stated that the fact that the applicant may have gotten some information from one of our employees that misled them or may have been incorrect does not automatically give them a right to be grandfathered in. Commissioner Bowman wondered if you can't rely on an employee's advice, what do you rely on. Director Keating was not sure it was erroneous advice. There was a 20' setback at that time, and subsequently churches were made special exception requirements and more requirements were put on them, specifically a 30' setback. Discussion continued as to whether the site plan the church has now meets the previous requirements, and it was felt the triggering date is April of 1985. 50