Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes <br />March 19, 1992 <br /> , <br /> <br />Page 16 <br /> <br />Mr. Hurlocker said before the board leaves the Board of <br />Adjustment portion of the agenda, he would like to make <br />a Motion to reconsider Mr. Trammell's Conditional Use <br />Application 0105(V). Mr. Olio-Mills seconded the motion <br />due to the fact that there were no contrary findings by <br />the board of what their findings were for denying the <br />applicant's request. He said he would like to address <br />the two board members who denied this request, to <br />seriously reconsider this vote. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall said the board needs to act on this <br />motion and the motion is one to reconsider and the board <br />needs to vote on that motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Alexander stated at the present time this Commission <br />has not adopted bylaws, procedures, rules and the like. <br />Therefore, it can be brought back for reconsideration. <br />However, the real key to this is whether the dissenting <br />votes will change there mind. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall said the board has generally <br />attempted to follow Robert's Rules of Order but she <br />thinks that this motion had been made in good faith to <br />reconsider. She then ruled that the board can vote on <br />it. The board will not take any more public testimony, <br />there will simply be another vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Amos said just for clarification, on this variance <br />the way he is reading it, as supposed to the way the <br />Commission was, unless there is evidence to support that <br />there are problem areas in the three criteria that are <br />listed, then you should rule in favor of the petition. <br />Mr. Amos asked if this one is on the reverse side. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall said the board needs to vote on <br />reconsidering this request. Those in favor of <br />reconsidering this request were Mr. Allison, Mr. <br />Hurlocker, Mr. Huie, Mr. Olio-Mills, Mr. Smith and Ms. <br />Stafford. Those in opposition were Mr. Amos, Mr. Hartgen <br />and Chairperson Randall. The vote was 6-3 to reconsider. <br /> <br />Mr. Amos asked Mr. Alexander to instruct the board as <br />what to do. <br /> <br />Mr. Alexander stated, "There is a significant difference <br />between a variance and a conditional use. The way the <br />ordinance is written, a conditional use if they present <br />evidence showing that they satisfy certain conditions, <br />then in essence they are entitled to your affirmative <br />vote unless there is substantial evidence for several <br /> <br /> <br />