6/22/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• on the public, aesthetics, and cited case law to support his arguments. He believed there was a question of intent in Sections 904.05(1) and 902.49 and that the Board should have the authority to make a determination in this appeal. Paving of le Street created a problem with the length of the side parking spaces. Home & Patio worked cooperatively with the County in getting the ownership of the street settled in order to simplify the negotiations that allowed for the road widening. Mr. Herzog summed up his argument on the issue and thanked the Commissioners for their time and attention Robert Mooney, one of the owners of the family business, who had been sworn, testified that Mr. Herzog had represented the facts as he knew them. The family has owned the business for a little over 30 years and they have tried to improve the business over the years as circumstances changed. He stated that the appeals process is very important to the public and many people are unable to go into court for appeals because of economics. If appeal before elected officials is eliminated, it would leave many people nowhere to go beyond staff level. There are differences of opinion in the interpretation of the regulations. He asked, if there is a discrepancy or question, that the Board decide on behalf of the individual before them who found the regulations very difficult to understand. He had to move to protect the business' interests while the process was ongoing or he would have been out of business. The Commissioners had no questions. Commissioner Adams recounted the facts and the question came back to the amount of coverage and lot size. It seemed to her like a lot of fuss over a small problem. The improvements that have been made to the properly have made abig difference in appearance and in terms of increased taxes. The use of the property over the period of 30 years was likely not considered when the LDRs were set. She had no problem with granting the variance. Commissioner Ginn stated her concerns were the basic footprint and the roof line. She felt the glass enclosure did not change the use, but changes the use -ability. She felt the property is unique, that the evidence supported granting the appeal, and would vote to grant the variance. She also believed the Board should look at how the appeals are directed. Commissioner Stanbridge pointed out that she and Commissioner Tippin had seen JUNE 229 1999 59 • BOOK 109 FAGEG