mins31992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 19 Chairperson Randall said we have one negative finding of fact as she stated earlier that the situation is not unique to the property, and she thought that was clear, that is an interpretation. Mr. Smith said that is a individual interpretation. He looked upon it similarly as Mr. Hurlocker did. His problem has come about because his septic line is to close to the right hand side of his property, that is the uniqueness of it. Mr. Alexander said basically from a legal perspective, in terms of the findings of fact that Chairperson Randall is referring to as to whether a situation where a Superior Court Judge would return it to the board, it would primarily depends on whether the judge agreed that it was unique or not based on the evidence that was presented because the finding of fact that Mr. Amos is making, basically his interpretation of the zoning ordinance as it pertains to the evidence that was presented. A judge could second guess that himself and if a judge found that there was evidence of it being unique then he could return it to the board. Mr. Hurlocker asked if there are conditions that Mr. Amos or Mr. Hartgen could apply to Mr. Trammell's request that would clarify this in there minds the approval of this request. Mr. Amos said from his perspective he looked at it and said if he had gotten as close as he could without disturbing that line to make the separation requirements we still would have had the infringement on the side line setbacks. Moving the building over two feet, he sees no significant accomplishment there. His concern was primarily on the fact that this general area there was not anything unique about his property. If we take and look at this from the perspective that that .septic line was initially put in, he would asSume that the county recommendation is how that is typically done and they define where that line would be run to assure adequate perk, from that perspective that does make that property unique from others. There being no further comments, Mr. Hurlocker MOTIONED to approve Conditional Use Application 0150(V), seconded Mr. Olio-Mills. The vote was 8-1; Mr. Hartgen dissenting. This reconsideration was approved based on the finding of fact.