Agenda - 09-01-2009 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8/5/09 ail Larry Wright But that's what started this whole discussion down in the White Cross area there was a septic problem in a commerdal plot where they wanted to expand into a residential. So, this whole thing started on your basic premise that the White Cross had a problem and then a Commissioner, Barry Jacobs, if I remember correctly in the quarterly hearing, said we need to really take a look at all the nodes. So this is kind of the history of this, a spedal look at a particular case is what, in my mind, catalyzed it. Earl Md<ee: I understand that. I guess I'm seeing problems that may or may not exist if you start instead of having the multiple nodes in the County with all of them having the same regulations and rules, you start having separate conditions for each one and parts of each one then I can see it getting very complicated and being twisted and pulled and bent. Lany Wright: I think the art of this would be, Judith has already talked about Bingham Township with its issues of waste transfer site, etc. and what they are wrestling with, we've got the Cedar Grove Township and then other nodes and what they are wrestling with, and I think the balance would be actually what Mark had to say to study it and to take a look at each node individually and I don't think this County by the nature of it is a one size fits all. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I wanted to comment on what you said, the Supreme Court, when it give rules sometimes says this is not to be a precedent to be established and they say that so that other cases coming up can't say well in so and so versus such and such, you said this therefore it applies. They limit it and I think if we want to do this which I think there's a spirit here to really discuss this and so to say this particular node deserves some spedal consideration, we can say this does not take away ftom the need to treat nodes equally, it's just a one time only kind of thing. So the person in Little River won't say well you did this up there. We did it with the caution that others don't get the same consideration without due process. Mark Marcoplos: What we would say to the person in Little River or some other node is you are totally welcome to have access to the process. You can request that it go through the same channel that this went through. It can go to the Planning Board, it can go to the County Commissioners or wherever it needs to go. That's what they get. They get access to the process. They don't get just because someone else went through the process stage by stage by stage and ended up with something they don't get that just by claiming it. They just get access to the process. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: On 54 where the guy had trouble with his septic field and needed something here which started this whole process, everyone got treated the same way instead of saying... what we want to do is stop that. Is that what you are implying Larry. Larry Wright: No, that's not what I was implying at all. Brian Crawford: Let me make a suggestion here, dearly we are not in support of the recommendation as the staff has put forth but the staff has said that there's a significant legal issue. They think that we just can't make a change like that, I suggest that you go one of two ways, you can always have someone make proposal that we can vote on with Mark's change or we can table this and have staff go bads and ask the attomey based on your recommendation if that's something that we are allowed to do or that we can do. That way we can at least get some legal guidance on whether or not tinkering with a line within the node is acceptable. I am not certain that it is within our authority to do so, I certainly would like to get guidance before we make that proposal to the Board. Mark Marcoplos: It's really illegal? Craig Benedict: I'll be the one writing what I believe it says or the three ways you can accomplish what you are talking about, three or four ways. There will be different time frames and different processes. I'll put that together for the next meeting. It's not something, I'll confer with the attomey if there is anything that I see that.... Brian Crawford: The only reason I said that is because it dearly has come across to me from staff that it is something that we can't do because a) the precedence it may set or b) dearly whether or not we have the authority just to tinker with the line within a node. If you're not saying that iYs in conflict with any guidance that you have then it's just as well that Mark makes his proposal and we vote on that and send that up to the Board. ThaYs the issue. Craig Benedict The objective is to have that intersection be allowed for commerdal instead of the entire three quarters (3/4) hatched area then there are ways to do that. I'll explain what ways they are. Brian Crawford: So then Mark you seem to have a proposal that you want to put forth, why don't make that in form of a motion and then let the Board discuss and vote on it. 8