HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_0878 (2)MALLARD HEAD CONDOMINIUM PROJECT - PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT:
CROSSWHITE: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mills has worked out here, he has determined that it
was approximately . . 45', drawing on this map (not clear). Would it be possible fiat
we withhold a ruling on this until he resubmits a more detailed drawing on this area here?
STEWART: I believe he said he did not want to withdraw.
HEDRICK: I personally think it would be well in order to ask that we have complete
compliance before we act on something of this magnitude.
Are you making that in the form of a motion?
CROSSWHITE: Yes, I suppose I am. Not asking him to withdraw it, but that he submit a
more detailed drawing of this area here. (Exhibit 2)
DAVENPORT: I think it would be dangerous to submit more evidence into it at this
time.
CROSSWHITE: I know it's splitting hairs, but
HEDRICK: Your motion would be defer action until such time as the setback lines have
been proven to be in compliance?
CROSSWHITE: Yes, could that be done at our next meeting? Because I know that Mr.
Lewis needs to get this answer as soon as possible.
MURDOCK: That would be the first Monday in August, I heliave.
HEDRICK: We are meeting Monday night. It could be handled Mrinday night, August 5th.
HEDRICK: The motion is that we defer action until our next meeting, which is August
5, Monday night, which will be at the Annex Building, and until such documentation is
presented to show compliance of the open area.
Is there any discussion on the motion?
DAVENPORT: Let me ask. Do you think we can (not clear)?
CLERK: You could reconvene the hearing then, on August 5th.
CROSSWHITE: Motion withdrawn.
HEDRICK: MOTION to reconvene the hearing until Monday, August 5, 1985, Annex Buil-
ding, Statesville, for the purpose of him submitting additional information which would
show compliance with the open area between your western property line and the location of
the treatment facility plant.
Any discussion?
MURDOCK: Is this treating Mr. Lewis fairly?
CROSSWHITE: No, but if we have to go by the rules set forth here.
MURDOCK: Well, there seems to be some doubt. The fairness of the situation is what
I am looking at. There seems to be some doubt, you know, different interpretations, of
the different parts that are being quoted.
HEDRICK: I think based on the testimony that I have heard and based on what
MURDOCK: I'm not talking about necessarily, I'm talking about the different inter-
pretations of different parts of the zoning ordinance, not the other part (not clear).
HEDRICK: Based on the ordinance that the county adopted, it is not in compliance.
MURDOCK: Well, there seems to be some questions as to what the word "structure" (not
clear) There seems to be some gray areas there.
HEDRICK: There may be some ambiguities, but our legal counsel that we employed and
have elected as our legal counsel has told us that it is not in compliance by his inter-
pretation that the definition of a structure does include the waste treatment facility.
And if that is, in fact, our belief, that he is, in fact, correct, then the location is
out of compliance with our ordinance.
CROSSWHITE: Mr. Davenport has said it would not be a good policy to approve it
subject to the fact that it may fit in unless we just want to grant a variance.
C
433