11/22/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

constrllction. He further stated that the Code requires handrails or safety rails projecting above the height of the wall to e prevent hazard, and that pedestrian safety or vision clearance cannot be waived until a more definite plan is submitted prior to construction. Mr. Haxton stated that the problem of the recording of the hearing happened because the person doing the recording did not understand the recorder and one side of the tape was blank. Mr. Haxton further stated that, contrary to what had been stated to Mr s. Filer, he had discovered that the last half of the tape was available and that the items she is interested in may be available on that recording. He further stated the transcript is not word for word since the recorder does not use that kind of operation. Council Member Haws asked for staff recommendation in this matter. Mr. Haxton stated that it was his feeling that the panel should decide whether the appeal process was defective in enough areas to have denied due process and if so, they might recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals hear the issue one more time, with emphasis on processing. Council Member Haws stated that he could not determine from the record why the Zoning Board of Appeals did what they did because the transcript did not make it clear. He expressed a request that in the future the Zoning Board of Appeals would e make findings when they make a decision so that it can be determined why they granted or did not grant an appeal. Council Member Keller commented that the opposition to the variances made light issue of all except the fence issue. He further stated that this issue was unclear because it appears to vary from 2 1/2 feet to 5 feet. Mr. Keller stated testimony ,from people who said "they heard" cannot be proved, and therefore only issues should be addressed. He stated his concern about people coming out with such strong words as "collusion," when in fact these things could not be proved. Councilman Keller made a motion to recommend approval of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, granting the variances. Council Member Haws seconded, stating that he agreed that the burden of proof was not met. However, he felt the building coverage issue and the fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals did not make their findings clear should be pursued. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned. Copies of the report were previously distributed to Council members, recommending denial of the appeal and upholding the Zoning Board decision to grant variances. e Minutes 11/22/76 -20 51(,