02/28/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Mr. Poticha stated that it was his feeling that if the and/or provi- sion were not intended to be used that it would have been amended since ~ 1968 when it was originally adopted. He further stated that the Code requires that there be one and one-half parking spaces on site for each room in an RG zone; therefore, a developer must come reasonably close to the 30-30 provision. Mr. Poticha stated that he felt the "and" is redundant and contended that the "or" is the usable part of the state- ment. Mr. Poticha further stated that he sat in at the meetings when the Code was adopted and he did not feel it was the spirit of the Plan- ning Commission to deal with the Code in a dual meaning, to only deal with the part of the Code that deals with the "most restrictive". He stated that the argument was made that the "or" does not count because the "and" would be the "most restrictive"; but that in fact when you see other maximum lot coverages, you find that, for example, in the R-3 zones you have maximum lot coverage of 50 percent, maximum parking coverage of 30 percent, II and" is 80 percent, but "or" is 70 percent and that would be more restrictive. He stated that this would not in fact be more restrictive, because the cost of land in this zone district is so high that the buildings go over the top of the cars and combined coverage allows you to build more parking or building. Mr. Poticha stated that in regard to the density issue, he felt that when there was such a discrepancy of 400 feet to 397 feet, that it was appropriate to take the matter to the Board of Appeals because that was what the Board was designed to handle. Martha Filer of 235 East 3rd Avenue spoke regarding the density issue, stating that the Code does not include any reference to a variance ~ with respect to density. Therefore, she felt there is no allowance ,., in the Code for variance on that issue. Mrs. Filer stated she felt the Code is very clear concerning the and/or provlslon. Mrs. Filer presented an exhibit which was made a part of the record regarding the grammatical necessity for the and/or. She stated that the phrase "and/or" has to be used because neither the word II and" nor the word "or" coul d be appl i ed every time you read it and that because there are various possibilities you could not use just the word "and" or the word "or". Mr. Long stated that the question should be asked "What were the legis- 1 ators tryi ng to accompl ish when the Code ws adopted II , and that when an administrative agency charged with the enforcement of regulations has over a great period of time interpreted a statute in a certain way, that that interpretation is entitled to great weight when ascertain- ing the meaning of that statute. . Recommendation: It was the unanimous decision that the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of December 22, 1976 should be incorporated in this decision and the appeal of the appellant should be denied. . Mr. Haws noted two major issues were discussed by the Assessment Panel: 1) Variances for density and that the appellants did not meet standards; and 2) the 30-30 issue. Mr. Delay asked that language be added to Section 9.556 of the Code to clarify that particular section, to which Manager replied that it is being developed. - \1't 2/28/77 --38