My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 09 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2001-2019 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
2017 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 09 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:03:13 PM
Creation date
10/3/2017 12:13:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BOAPKT 2017 09 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 16, 2017 <br />Page2of8 <br />DeJong reviewed the procedures for the meeting; opened the public hearing; and stated there <br />are six criteria which must be met for the board to approve a variance request. <br />DeJong stated that for the requested variance to be approved, five of the six votes would need <br />to be affirmative. <br />DeJong then stated copies of the criteria are located on the table next to entryway. He asked <br />for verification of proper public notice. <br />Ritchie verified the application to be heard this evening is complete, and was mailed to <br />surrounding property owners on July 28, 2017 published in the Boulder Daily Camera on July <br />30, 2017, and the property was posted on posted on July 28, 2017. <br />Williams moved and Meseck seconded a motion that all requirements have been satisfied and <br />the application submitted by the applicants has been properly filed. Motion passed by <br />unanimous voice vote. <br />DeJong asked if anyone at the hearing had any objections to the hearing procedures he had <br />described and asked if there were any other preliminary matters that needed to be taken care <br />of. None were heard. <br />Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: <br />DeJong asked for disclosures from the board members for any site visits, ex parte <br />communications, and any conflicts of interest or required disclosures on the application(s). <br />All Board members indicated they did not have any ex parte communications or any conflicts of <br />interest for the applications. <br />Campbell did not visit the site, no ex parte contact, no conflict of interest. <br />Ewy did not visit the site, no ex parte contact, no conflict of interest. <br />Williams did not visit the site, no ex parte contact, no conflict of interest. <br />DeJong did not visit the site, no ex parte contact, no conflict of interest. <br />Levinson did not visit the site, no ex parte contact, no conflict of interest. <br />Meseck did not visit the site, no ex parte contact, no conflict of interest. <br />DeJong asked the applicants if they were ready to proceed with the hearing. <br />The applicants indicated they were ready to proceed with the hearing. <br />392 Sycamore Lane — Variance Request — Case VAR -0071-2017 <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.