8/9/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M being developed, and they are involved day by day with site plans, etc. Planning Director Boling advised that the Board of Adjust- ments.did not go along with this recommendation. Their point of view was that there should be an independent board for these type decisions. At this point staff would recommend that we continue having the Board of Adjustments look at variances and technical deviations from the strict requirements of the Code, but when it comes to interpretations in applying the LDR, it was felt it would be better for those to go to the PBZ. This is also an approach the State was suggesting the localities go to. It was believed there is a potential for abuse in more or less picking your board. Attorney Vitunac referred to the establishment of the new Historic Resource Advisory Committee, and felt that part should be moved to Title I and that just how it functions should be in this section, the same as with PBZ and the Board of Adjustment. Planner Cheryl Tworek advised that Attorney O'Brien said we should keep it in here because it is just a committee, not an established Board. Chairman Eggert expressed her preference for not having this divided between different chapters, and Attorney Vitunac explained that there will be one chapter with every Board that there is and how they are appointed. How they function will be in the separate chapters. County Attorney Vitunac next referred to the Paragraph (8) on Time Limitations at the top of Page 15. He believed variances are something that run with the land; so, he did not see why you would have a time limit on a variance. Attorney Collins agreed with the County Attorney that there shouldn't be a time limitation. Attorney Vitunac felt we should get rid of Paragraph (8) and also delete Paragraph (9) in regard to judicial relief because you don't want to give someone a right to go to court. 57 ROCU 841 -14