Laserfiche WebLink
whether it was issued 11 years ago, there is still a requirement <br />that she connect into the utilities. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if we can allow Mrs. Clark to <br />hook up for the water and wastewater when it is available and pay <br />the former traffic impact fee. <br />County Attorney Vitunac explained that water and sewer fees <br />must be paid regardless of the state of the building. The <br />traffic impact fee is another matter. If her building permit is <br />lapsed, when she comes in for a new building permit, she has to <br />pay the new impact fee. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that he is trying to find some <br />mitigating circumstances to help Mrs. Clark, and if we could do <br />it legally, he would support a Motion to allow Mrs. Clark to pay <br />the traffic impact fee at the previous level. <br />Attorney Vitunac stated that the Board would have to find <br />that her permit has not lapsed. <br />Director Rymer advised that the Building Code is very clear <br />that a permit is invalid if the work authorized by the permit is <br />suspended or abandoned for a period of six months. She has asked <br />that Mrs. Clark supply her with some evidence to show that she <br />has been doing some work during that time, but Mrs. Clark has not <br />brought in any such evidence. <br />Mrs. Clark claimed that she brought in some bills, but the <br />Building staff wouldn't take them. <br />Director Rymer informed the Board that Mrs. Clark brought in <br />a bill for some material purchased the same day she was in the <br />office. <br />Discussion continued at length regarding the fact that the <br />house is now completed and ready for occupancy except for the <br />final inspection, the need for the final inspection, the lack of <br />evidence to justify extension of the previous permit, etc. <br />JAN 101989 <br />19 <br />BOOK 75 PALE 551 <br />