Laserfiche WebLink
<br />BOARD OF APPEALS AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES: ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING <br />JANUARY 24, 1980 PAGE 2 <br /> <br />B. ARTICLE 2. Members. <br /> <br />1. Section 2. Terms of Board Members. <br /> <br />Rupp comments that the portion of this Section which reads, IIAl1 terms shall <br />commence fOllowing the first f/londay of any day in the calendar year. II, should <br />be alright since the State Statues require that the City Council take office <br />the first Monday also. <br /> <br />C. ARTICLE 3. Officers and Personnel. <br />No comments. <br />D. ARTICLE 4. Meetings. <br />1- Section 4. Hearings. <br />a. Point 6. Comments by Staff. <br /> <br />Rupp asks if this is a new provision, adding on later in the discussion that <br />he hopes it would stay in there so that the Staff (meaning the Chief Building <br />Inspector, for the most part), would have the oppurtunity to express comments <br />to the Board for their consideration, or not just for their consideration. <br /> <br />After some general discussion between the Board and the Staff, it was agreed <br />upon to leave the provision as it is in the By-Laws, so that the Staff can <br />bring last minute additional information to the Board's attention, help the <br />Board in referring to the Louisville Municipal Code, and to point out conflicting <br />areas of the Municipal Code if a variance were to be approved. The staff should <br />not, however, make any recommendations or try to persuade the vote to go one <br />way or another. <br /> <br />Davies suggests that it might be a good idea if a point Number 11 shouldn't <br />be added on to this section, aSking the Building Inspector for anything that <br />the Board hasn1t covered in the meeting, off the floor, or amongst the members. <br />He feels that they should ask him (the Building Inspector), because so far he <br />would have no authority to say a word until they do so. <br /> <br />Ferris comments that sometimes it might be a good idea to get the Planning <br />Commission's feelings and ideas on some of the variances, (i.e., setbacks), as <br />they might be able to clarify some of their intentions and thoughts that they <br />had in the very beginning. <br /> <br />Rupp points out that the difference between a Zoning Variance and a P.U.D. <br />amendment can be very _~onfus i ng. <br /> <br />b. Point 10. Vote by Board. <br /> <br />John Rupp states that when you have a tie vote, and it isn't spelled out in the <br />By-Laws, it should 'be stipulated that a tie vote is automatically a vote of <br />denial so that the appJicant doesn't get confused. <br />