Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19841025 C I T Y OF A S P E N BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Thursday, October 25, 1984 City Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. AGENDA I. 'New Business Case #r84-24, Joel and I:athleen Smith II . Adjournment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 25. 1984 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 07 p. m. with members Charlie Paterson, Josephine Mann, Francis Whitaker, John Herz, and Rick Head present. CASE #84-24. JOEL AND KATHLEEN SMITH Lavagnino introduced the application for 1150 Black Birch Drive, Lot 15, Black Birch Estates. The variance requested is: "Section 2-4-6 .3 (c) (1) : no building shall be located so as to be within a flood hazard area designated by the U. S. Corps of Engineers Flood Plain Report for the Roaring Fork River.. Applicant is seeking a variance to build in the flood plain. " Lavagnino noted the applicant is not present. Lavagnino asked if Paul Taddune, city attorney, had any information on this appli- cation. Taddune replied no . He received a message that the applicant called around 2:00 p.m. The message indicated there are some legal questions. The meeting is interrupted by a phone call from Robin Molny, architect for the applicant. Lavagnino took the call. There is a dialogue between the chairman and the architect. Taddune advised the Board to continue the hearing to a date certain through a motion. He instructed the clerk to make contact with the applicant. That is a courtesy. Sometimes people forget the hearing date. It is the city' s policy to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. Lavagnino reported that the architect indicated on the telephone that this application was to be withdrawn. The architect also indicated that the attorney for the applicant was to be here to formally withdraw. The attorney is not present. The architect does not know if he has the authority to withdraw the application. Taddune said if the case were continued to a future date then he could contact the client. He would encourage the applicant to submit a letter of withdrawal. Lavagnino noted the next scheduled hearing date is December 13 , 1984; is it appropriate to table this case to that date. Taddune answered yes. Also let the record reflect that it is 4:10 p.m. and there is no applicant. Let the record reflect the architect called at 4:10 p.m. Lavagnino stated for the record that the applicant has not arrived. He stated for the record that the city attorney advised the Board to make a motion to continue the hearing as a courtesy for the applicant. He stated for the record that Taddune would contact the applicant' s counsel and would inquire as to why the applicant did not make an appearance. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 25. 1984 Motion: Charlie Paterson moved to continue case #84-24 until December 13 , 1984 , as suggested by the city attorney; seconded by John Herz. Discussion. Whitaker objected strongly to what the Board is subjected to by people who do not appear. He objected to tabling a case to a date certain, the applicant not showing on that agreed date, and then tabling the case again. He favored throwing out this case. There is no word from the applicant. There is no word from the applicant' s attorney. There is only a call from the architect who is not authorized to withdraw the application. Lavagnino agreed the applicant could extend the same courtesy that the city is extending to him. At least someone should have informed the deputy city clerk about the status of the application. The Board shows up and the applicant does not appear. Taddune does commiserate with the Board. This happens to him all the time. His philosophy is that as a public servant he has to give the benefit of every doubt to the public. Therefore, Taddune is tolerant over a time. If the applicant were to prove himself wrong through a series of discourtesies then Taddune would not extend anything to the applicant. Paterson agreed with Whitaker except there may be mitigating circumstances that the Board is not aware of. Tabling the case does not hurt the Board. Whitaker asked if any members made a site visit. Did anyone see the sign? He did not see the variance sign posted when he visited the site this morning. It is very discourteous for the applicant not to show up. Lavagnino called for a vote: motion carried with Whitaker opposed. BOARDS' COMMENTS Whitaker suggested that it be added to the manual that if the applicant were not to appear then the variance would automatically be denied. The application would have to be resubmitted as a new proposal. Taddune reasoned hard and fast rules in the long run generate more work. The rule results in an inflexible position. If this were a court of law the judge after sitting on the bench for fifteen minutes would dismiss the case. It would be the respon- sibility of the person who failed to appear to petition for a rehearing. In those cases the judge spends an equivalent amount of time talking to the lawyers about repetitioning for a hearing. In some instances the judge spends more time. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 25. 1984 Whitaker argued if the applicant were to know the case would automatically be dismissed and be resubmitted and be renotified then the applicant might make more of an effort to show up. On his understanding of the facts Taddune concluded that the applicant does not care if the Board dismisses or withdraws the case. Taddune is trying to avoid having to resurect every- thing. He assumes in most cases the applicant wants the courtesy. In this case the applicant may not. Bill Drueding, building department , noted the applicant has applied for a scream margin review. Motion: Francis Whitaker moved to adjourn the meeting at 4 : 20 p.m. ; seconded by Charlie Paterson. All in favor; motion carried. �Grbslr�r iy0/r� � .- Barbara Norris�, Deputy City Clerk 3