Laserfiche WebLink
These four items were discussed by all parties present both for and <br /> agains�. The main concerns were: <br /> l. No property survey has been conducte3 by the applicant. <br /> 2. There is some question whether or not the adjacent property <br /> was required to dedicate ten (10) feet oF right-of-way to <br /> the City. <br /> Mr. Iles , after reviewing the findi.ngs and listening to the L-estimony, <br /> suggested to the Board that a rehearing be givEn and a date set for <br /> that rehearing. <br /> After much deliberation by the Board, Dtr. S�Iilson made the following <br /> motion: <br /> I move that we grant the applicant' s motion for reconsideration; <br /> the separate time for this reconsidcration hearing be set and <br /> the Chairman make all parties aware of that within five (5) <br /> days of this date. <br /> That the applicant provide a written memoran3um to the <br /> Bu:.lding Department outlining tlte basis to support hi= request <br /> foz reconsideration, that is a variance in this case, :nd <br /> that this be provided to the City within ten (10) days �f the <br /> hearing and the City will further provide �opies of that for <br /> anyone who requests il• . <br /> The Chairn:an then took a poll on the motioa rehearingsand 4r• toaqland <br /> and Mr. Ru:��ell were in favor of granting <br /> was against. The motion carried• <br /> There being no Eurther business coming before the t3oard, tt:e Chairman <br /> declared the meeting adjourned. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> Kenneth W. Callaltan <br /> Secretary <br /> -5- <br /> � . � <br />