Variance legality debated by commissioner/attorney

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

In this case, Ellis Smith purchased the property, subdivided it and sold one parcel to his son who subsequently subdivided that parcel.

The variance pertained to the parcel created by the second division.

Novak said the subsequent section of the LDRs, allowing such divisions on land “contiguous to the original replat,” prevailed over Bryan’s argument.

Bryan said that was incorrect.

“This is not contiguous,” Bryan said. “This is the parent parcel. The parent parcel is the parent parcel. Your argument does not hold up.”

But Novak argued that the county planner applied rules and a process that had been followed for decades. The planning office had operated within its established policies.

“Until the rules are changed, this is what should be applied,” Novak said.

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