|
incompetent evidence, just to have a pristine record, but you don't have to do that. So, you could 1
<br />just have a motion to, the findings of facts are as presented in the application and in the testimony 2
<br />of staff and Mr. David Cates. 3
<br /> 4
<br />Leon Meyers: And there are some findings listed on Page 69. Are you saying those are not relevant? 5
<br /> 6
<br />James Bryan: So, the first part is the findings of facts, what you guys are considering. Consider the application 7
<br />and everybody that spoke today. And then, the second one is the conclusions you have to make, 8
<br />and those are the four, and you have to say yes or no to each of the four. And then, the final one 9
<br />is to approve or deny based on whether they have met all four of them. I'm sorry if I got too far 10
<br />from the mic on that. 11
<br /> 12
<br />Beth Bronson: So, the reference they attach, that is referencing Agreement 1, which indicates the interpretation, 13
<br />Exhibit B. So, that would be Page 54. Yes, 54 and 55. So, they didn't do anything to create this 14
<br />hardship, it is the geometry of the parcel, and this lot was created in 1976. 15
<br /> 16
<br />Leon Meyers: All of that stuff is referenced on Page 69. Right. 17
<br /> 18
<br />Beth Bronson: Yes. 19
<br /> 20
<br />Kyle Myers: Yes. So, the motion is to accept the findings, which are unnecessary hardship, which is Section 21
<br />2.10.4.A, and that's shown in the package, and then, No. 2, or B is hardship results from conditions 22
<br />that are peculiar to the property. The third one is hardships did not result from actions taken by the 23
<br />applicant or property owner, and the fourth one is the requested variance is consistent with the 24
<br />spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance. 25
<br /> 26
<br />Leon Meyers: But, James, what you're saying is that a motion to approve the findings would reference Page 69 27
<br />and the application package and tonight's testimony. Did I understand that correctly? 28
<br /> 29
<br />James Bryan: You could do it that way. I'm sorry, there's a lot of ways to attack it, but I would suggest just, the 30
<br />first motion should be about the findings of fact, and so, it would be what are you basing your 31
<br />decision on, and that would be the application and the speakers. And you could just say that. You 32
<br />could just say the application and the speakers. You don't have to identify them as staff and David 33
<br />Cates, but you can if you want. And then vote on that. So, everybody agrees that's what we 34
<br />heard, and that's what we're basing our decision on. And then, we'll have a discussion of, all right, 35
<br />now, based on that, let's go through these four. Did they create this hardship on their own? Is it 36
<br />necessary? You know. 37
<br /> 38
<br />Leon Meyers: And the second motion would confirm the Board's findings that the facts, which we've already 39
<br />approved, satisfy the four conditions. 40
<br /> 41
<br />James Bryan Yes. 42
<br /> 43
<br />Leon Meyers: Okay. So first, motion to approve the findings, as James has described them. 44
<br /> 45
<br />Beth Bronson: I mean, before I make a motion, I would just have that discussion of these four items. The 46
<br />hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. I think that is 47
<br />correct. However, the one comment from the DAC committee that referenced the parent tract, and 48
<br />because I can't pull the GIS up, I don't understand if that's actually relevant to this or if it is a 49
<br />complete, like they're referencing if this tract were to be divided up. 50
<br />9
|