7/12/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M Section 902-07. Appeals from decisions of the community development di- rector or his designee. (1) Purpose and intent. This section is estab- lished to provide a mechanism for the hearing and resolution of appeals of decisions or actions by the community development director or his des- ignee and for further appeals from decisions and actions from the planning and zoning commis- sion. (d) Notice of the appeal, in .writing, shall be mailed by the planning division to the owners of all land which abuts the property upon which an appeal is sought, at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing. The prop- erty appraiser's address for said owners shall be used in sending all such notices. The notice shall contain the name of the applicant for the appeal, a description of the land sufficient to identify it, a descrip- tion of the appeal requested, as well as the date, time and place of the hearing. (6) Effect of filing an appeal. The filing of an appeal shall terminate all proceedings which fur- ther the action appealed until the appeal is re- solved, except when the halting of such action poses a threat to life or property. The planning and zoning commission shall make this determi- nation. Notwithstanding this provision, proceed- ings involving review of a development applica- tion may proceed when an appeal of an administrative decision has been filed and will be considered concurrent with the development ap- plication request. M Attorney Henderson maintained that the above procedures have not been followed here, and for the record, he suggested that this Board lacks quasi-judicial jurisdiction to hear this site plan matter today. Attorney Henderson stressed that the ordinance is compelling in the sense that it requires a 330 -ft. separation. There is no distinction between aesthetic versus functioning medians. There are no distinctions in the ordinance between local and collective roads. These are criteria or distinctions that have been created by the Public Works Director and the Community Development Director. Attorney Henderson next addressed the issue of compatibility with regard to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He read aloud the following Policy 1.16: 72 800K 92 PAGE 846 July 12, 1994