Variance legality debated by commissioner/attorney

Published: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 10:45 AM.

A private practicing attorney, Bryan questioned whether the original minor replat of the parcel, which led to the variance request into established setbacks in order to build on the property, which abuts park land, was legal.

She said the attorney’s written opinion of two weeks prior seemed to indicate the board could approve a replat in violation of the LDR.

Novak said it was a proper replat, but also said the replat was not within the purview of the BOCC.

The BOCC’s lone consideration in the matter was reviewing and approving or denying the variance request.

He said the replat was permissible under county land development regulations and within the purview of the county planning office.

“The planner had the authority to approve the minor replat,” Novak said.

He contended that Bryan’s characterization of the replat being illegal was faulty because it was based on just one section of the LDRs, that speaking to additional replats of a parent parcel.

1 2 3 4 5

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.

▲ Return to Top