6/22/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of such decisions go into the court system. He reported that the Board of Adjustment had made a similar recommendation. Director Boling then reviewed the specific appeal and the history and advised that the Board of Adjustment denied a variance request from Home & Patio by a vote of 3-1. The Board of County Commissioners is sitting like the Board of Adjustment reviewing the evidence and is to decide whether or not a variance should be granted after listening to the evidence. Using exhibits displayed on the ELMO, Director Boling then proceeded with a comprehensive review of the history of the property, what Home & Patio wished to do to improve the property, and the governing regulations as set out in the above memorandum. He pointed out the variance criteria found in the memorandum and recommended the appeal be denied. Following his presentation, Director Boling responded to questions of Commissioner Ginn concerning front and side yard setbacks. Vice Chairman Adams inquired about the paving of 14' Street and whether right-of- way ightof- way had been purchased from or provided by Home & Patio. Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II, who was sworn, advised of the ownership of the property that was acquired for paving 14' Street. No right-of-way had been purchased or obtained from Home & Patio. Director Boling responded to a question from Commissioner Stanbridge about an approval for an enclosure as a trade-off for parking in 1987. Commissioner Ginn inquired about the roof line and staff yielded to the attorney for the appellant. Ted Herzog, attorney for the appellant, who stated he had been sworn, advised that the footprint of the building and the roof is the same as in 1972 when it was constructed (under old regulations) with a small modification in 1980. He proceeded to give a lengthy presentation which has been greatly condensed in these minutes. Mr. Herzog commented on a statement made by Director Boling concerning the appeal process and pointed out the time and costs related to taking an appeal of this nature to court and possibility of "failure to exhaust administrative remedies". Because the LDRs were unclear, he brought this appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. He strongly believed that an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners should exist as part of the administrative process giving reasons based on extensive costs and necessary procedures JUNE 229 1999 57 BOOK 109 FAGE