Agenda - 10-21-2008 - 4n - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~tiS,l •' V ~t1 •S~~ section 13.20.1 of the Ordinance reads as folicwvs: Ground abso-pffon systems wifh a design capacify of 3,000 gallons per day or mote and package ttrsatmenf planfs for sanitary sewage disposal are expressly prohlbifed Fn the AR distrkts and Rural i3uif+erDistricis asshown in the adopted Comprehensive Plan exceptas maybe approveiffhrough a Special Use Permit or a Planned Development DisMcf. in consultation with the Attorney's office, staff has determined that there is a major issue w~h respect to the County developing a land use requiring the issuance of a SUP. Speaficafiy, the issues are: 1. There is a concern over the need to make certain findings of fact during the review of a SUP project, speaficaliy that the responsible board has made an impartial decision. Recent court cases have questioned the legal ability of a governing body m issue itself a SUP as there is a conc~m over the ability of the members to make an unbiased decision on the evidence presented at tfiequasi-judical hearing, 2 From a practical standpoint the BOCC and the Board of Adjustment, the two (2j boards that are responsible for reviewing and approving SUP projects, are opened up to critiasm on their ability to conduk~ a fair hearing acid render an impartial decision due to the Courrty, or a County department, being the applicant, 3. The incestuous nature of the SUP permitting process creates a legal conundrum that is ha~tng to be corrected State wkle. In an effort to address this problem, staff is proposing the following: 1. Amending Section 6.20.9 to clarity that County projects are not required to obtain a SUP when a large ground absorption septic system, or a package treatment plant, is proposed to support a proposed land use Staff does not believe the County ever intended for public projects to obtain a SUP •weere a large ground absorption system was proposed. Through this amendment the County avoids the legal conundrum of having to review, act upon, and approve County projects- fhroughthe quasi judicial prodess. - •, tt should be noted the proposes change will not affect a property owner's ability to develop a ground absorption system that has a design capacity over 3,000 gallons per day within the Agricultural Residenfrai (AR) a Rural Buffer (RBj zoning d'~stricts upon issuance of a Speaat Use Permit or Planned Deveioprnent approval. The amendment will, however, nat require the Countyto obtain such approvals. This amendment is necessaryto address ~ permitting and approval of County projects due to recent changes in State regulations. -