2/5/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r a � Attorney Vitunac asked if the applicant had enough time to make the proper response if he chose to do so, and Director Boling replied affirmatively. Edmund Lappeman, property owner and petitioner in this appeal, stressed that the petition today is for the right to have his application reviewed rather than to reach a conclusion on the site plan itself. One of the contentions here is that the Planning & Zoning Commission improperly interpreted the plain language of Section 23.3 and 23.3 (f)(1) of the Code and that the decision to reject the application as incomplete was erroneous. Apparently reading from the Appeal_ of Decision filed by James Young of Kimley-Horn and Associates on November 21, 1990, Mr. Lappeman made the following.assertions: M. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IMPROPERLY INTERPRETED. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF § 23.3 AND § 23.3(f)(1) OF THE CODE AND THE DECISION TO REJECT THE APPLICATION AS INCOMPLETE WAS ERRONEOUS A. Section 23.2 is entitled "Required Site ,Plan Submittals" and specifically sets .- forth each item of information required in an application for site plan approval. County staff agree that every requirement of that section was met by Mr. Lappeman's application except one: staff contend that the requirement of § 23.2(1)(10) was not met. B. Section 23.2(f)(10) states that a site plan application must contain the following information "in graphic or written form:" (10) Specific boundaries and acreage of wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas, as appropriate. C. Mr. Lappeman provided more than sufficient information to satisfy the limited requirements of §23.2(f)(10). The following information was contained in the application: Mr. Lappeman reiterated that the whole argument here has been one of review and they simply wanted to go through the process. Chairman Bird believed that it is staff's contention that in order to start the review process, a certain amount of basic 23 ILC�Ci{ Ci 1 F'AvE 50-L