LP-088 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , . . NC-39, LP-88 Page #3 5. The applicant has not c~mpleted the previously required work, and has not p~oposed any additional means of re- ducing the other existing non-conformities. Therefore it appears that the proposal is inconsistent with the' intentions of the non-conformity section of the zoning code. ' 6 . I n re s pee t toN C - 3 9 t he i s sue i s w he the r 0 r not i f the applicant completed the previous landscaping plans is the~e something else the applicant could do to reduce the number of non-conformities. After reviewing, the list of existing non-conformities it appears that a major concern is dust control. The applicant should in an effort to reduce the non-conformities be required to use similar spraying techniques used by the County and, State to reduce the dust problem. E. General Information Concerning Development Plans 1. On April 12, 1979 the City Building Inspector noticed that the applicant had started construction on the pro- posed building without a building permit. Consequently, a re~ tag was issued and an order to stop construction until proper approval and permits were issu~d. " 2. The building plans are complete and contain all requlred information ih terms of a floor plan, elevations and exterior treatment. 3. Site and landscape plans are somewhat inadequate in that the buildings are not identified and dimensioned, there is no indication of what structure is the proposed building and the existing non-conformities are not addressed. F. Planning Commission Consideration and Recommendation Extract From Minutes Board Of Review Regular Meeting May 15, 1979 Chairman Brown stated that the applicant is proposing to construct an industrial building at a site with Type IV Non-conformities. Robert E. Norgard, Vice President of MacGillis & Gibbs Company was present to answer questions. He commented that because of revisions and weather problems the firm has not completed the landscaping previously required.