Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes <br />March 19 1992 <br /> <br />Pa <br /> <br />him unique and his lot unique because of how it runs. <br />Not that his neighbors' run the same way on the same <br />distance from the property line and he thinks the board <br />is getting tied up in something about what is unique and <br />what is not. Mr. Hurlocker said in his mind the board <br />was asked to consider two things, the side setback and <br />the height. The height really never was addressed, other <br />than mentioned, and never came up about the side lot <br />lines. Mr. Trammell is permitted to put his paving in as <br />it is in now, he is permitted to park his RV on that <br />particular pavement at that particular location. What he <br />was requesting and what he was attempting to do was cover <br />that. Mr. Hurlocker said he would agree with this denial <br />if the septic tank line was not a problem or if he could <br />incur expense. In this particular circumstance he finds <br />it hard to argue that this situation is not unique to him <br />along simply because of the location and the fact that it <br />was brought up very stringently that his particular line, <br /> not necessarily all the lines, given him problems and it <br />-was very fragile. Mr. Hurlocker said his request for <br /> reconsideration was to make sure that thos.e kind of <br /> things did not enter into it. What the board was <br /> considering was the fact that we were asked to vary the <br /> side lot line and heights requirement. The side lot line <br /> being the most critical in this issue. He is not <br /> requesting to do something that he is not permitited to <br /> do. Mr. Hurlocker said he thinks this request deserves <br /> reconsideration and he thinks the board needs to consider <br /> strictly the two issues side setbacks and height iand he <br /> would ask the two that voted against this request to <br /> again review this. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall asked if there were any additional <br />interpretations in finding of fact to be deferred <br />especially by the opposition to support there position <br />just so we can have it on record. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartgen asked Mr. Alexander if they were required to <br />respond to that, or could they chose to remain as they <br />are with the present circumstances and let the process <br />move forward and if it does return to the board, then <br />they would consider it again. <br /> <br />Mr. Alexander said that they are obviously not required <br />to respond to it and if the process is brought back, then <br />that will be another case. <br /> <br /> <br />