Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicant, wished <br />to clear up this procedural item for the record. He stated that <br />there is nothing new or different in the site plan before the <br />Board this morning than what was presented to the P & Z <br />Commission. However, staff takes the position that no matter <br />what kind of record the applicant built, everything has to be <br />shown on the drawing. As Mr. Kirrie's attorney, he wrote letters <br />stating that the applicant will do this, that, or the other <br />thing, but staff does not consider the record sufficient. <br />Attorney O'Haire emphasized that particular requirement is not <br />set out in the code of ordinances. Therefore, to satisfy and <br />respond to the Agenda item prepared by staff, they put all this <br />garbage on the plan. There is nothing that has not been told to <br />the P & Z or addressed in a letter from himself to staff. <br />Attorney Vitunac asked Mr. Boling if that was the case, and <br />Mr. Boling stated that, in his opinion, there is no problem in <br />considering this an appeal of the same site plan that went before <br />the P & Z Commission on March 24, 1988. <br />Continuing with staff's recommendation, Mr. Boling advised <br />that a video tape of the site area is available if at any time <br />during the discussion, the Board wished to view it. Mr. Kirrie's <br />residence on site is an 1152 S.F.(square foot) mobile home. <br />Behind it is a 2642 S.F. manufacturing/warehouse building. The <br />proposed site plan would have a 5600 S.F. addition done in phases <br />to bring the manufacturing/warehouse building to a total of <br />approximately 8200 S.F. in relation to the 1152 S.F. mobile home <br />residence. <br />Mr. Boling emphasized that the application does not meet the <br />ordinance, and the ordinance we are talking about is the "old <br />ordinance" 87-22, even after consideration of the site plan <br />revisions addressed in Attorney O'Haire's letter of yesterday. <br />He next reviewed the Summary of P & Z Commission Action shown on <br />pages 5 and 6 of staff's memo of recommendation and addressed the <br />6 items of concern: 1) The applicant's response to our concerns <br />MAY 17198 <br />30 <br />BOOK 72 r'., r 373 <br />