Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 20, 2011 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Public Present in Favor of Application: <br />None heard. <br />Staff and Applicant Closing Comments: <br />None heard. <br />Public Hearing Closed / Board Discussion: <br />The board members discussed the proposal and whether or not it met the 6 Criteria for <br />approval. <br />Motion and Vote: <br />Chancellor moved and Brassem seconded a motion to a <br />presented by the applicant and staff. <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Chris Fuller <br />Erik Jasiak <br />Gunnar Malmquist <br />Horst Loeblich <br />James Stuart <br />Wayne Chancellor <br />Yes <br />Yes <br />excused <br />No <br />exused <br />Y <br />Larr Brassem, associate Ye <br />Motion: gassed: 4 to 1 <br />Loeblich stated he wa <br />Discussion Items <br />BOA an <br />Discussion followed <br />Chance W�h <br />diffic change <br />adv eous to add <br />be m -¢ approval. <br />DiscussionUlowed with <br />▪ H•� s interpr <br />▪ Wh a �, a e r <br />the variance request as <br />a #1 !P.t been meet. <br />d for approval of a variance. <br />n talked aboufor years and he believes it would be <br />the six (6) criteria. It would perhaps be more <br />th criteria that outlines how many of the criteria must <br />following general topics: <br />ich or how many criterion should be met? <br />f public comment in making a decision? <br />▪ How th d 'interprets each of the criterion. <br />▪ Review o ch of the current criteria. <br />▪ A way to improve the process, add history of other similar cases to the staff <br />report. <br />A) Loeblich had two statements regarding the current process: <br />1. The process we have works well. <br />2. It is okay it it is a struggle for the board members to make a <br />decision. Helps to create an excellent record. <br />▪ What is reasonable? <br />▪ What is unique? <br />