mins31992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 199.2 Page 17 general provisions. But there has to be substantial evidence. In essence the burden is on somebody to come forward and show you why they should not get the conditional use. The variance on the other hand is much different. There, the burden is on the applicant to show that they have satisfied each of the conditions imposed in a variance applicant. Tonight, you only had evidence in support of the variance. You Could choose not to believe it if you wished, there was no opposition to it, which may or may not be important to you one way or the other. The substantial evidence that was presented, you may disagree as to whether the evidence presented actually proved the fact, and that of course would be a personal decision which you are entitled to make. That is what your responsibilities are with the board. Mr. Alexander said it is extremely important to the degree that you believe that the variance is not needed, there should be a finding of fact, and of course Mr. Amos and Mr. Hartgen being negative votes, should proper those findings in this reconsideration." He added that he is glad this reconsideration came up because as the vote was taken with no findings except for the positive findings that were made by the Chairman. It would be very difficult for a Superior Court Judge not to send it back to the board, because there were no findings showing why they did not approve their case. Chairperson Randall said she tends to disagree. She does remember Mr. Amos questioning when he claimed that he found no evidence at all to support finding number 1 alleged hardships or partially difficulties are unique. Now Mr. Hurlocker disagreed and she agreed with Mr. Hurlocker, but that does not matter. From Mr. Amos' point of view she thought he offered his statement that he did not feel the conditions of having a septic line that did not work very well was at all that unique to the property. In fact it was generic to that particular neighborhood and she understood that as a finding of fact. It was a different interpretation of the data than hers. She said she clearly thought that was a finding of fact. · "Is the board considering whether Mr Hurlocker stated, it is unique or the fact that he cannot use his particular property because of his sePtic tank line." Mr. Hurlocker said, "Chairperson Randall's statement just indicated that the reason it was unique to him individually is because his neighbors also had problems with their septic tanks." His septic tank and his particular line that is on his property does in fact make