Laserfiche WebLink
City Plan Commission <br /> ' October 2,2008 <br /> Page 3 , <br /> Mrs. Charlotte Hanks and Mr. Tom Malenshek were sworn in by Mrs. IAlthoff. <br /> Mrs. Hanks stated that when the builder went to take out a building p�rmit he was told he would <br /> have to pave the driveway and it was not appealable. Mrs. Hanks stated that they have 13 acres <br /> which she considers a hay field and she would like to see driveways appealable based on her <br /> 1,300 foot driveway. Mrs. Hanks obtained 10 to 15 signatures from immediate neighbors saying <br /> that they have no problems with the current driveway. Mrs. Hanks stated that dust is not an <br /> issue. Mr. Malenshek stated that he would like to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and appeal <br /> the decision and believes he has a good argument. <br /> Mr. Dunn asked whether there have been other similar circumstances. <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that he has not come across any other related cases since he has been employed � <br /> with the City. Mr. Crowe stated that the reason for the 100 feet is th�t a majority of driveways � <br /> are going to be 100 feet or less within the city and he feels that these riveways should be on an ', <br /> improved surface because of the concern of ground water pollution. T e requirement for the first ' <br /> 100 feet being paved is for aesthetics, dust control and the consistent 1 ok of asphalt. '� <br /> Mr. Dunn asked that if the last sentence were stricken, would the item $till not be appealable. I <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance by e�n Administrative Official II <br /> of the City would be appealable. Mr. Crowe stated that the reason staff went the route with the I� <br /> administrative review was because staff could see a lot of these types of cases coming around � <br /> and that stipulations need to be set up on what is allowable and also for timing reasons for <br /> petitioners. <br /> Mr. Dunn asked whether this case had been administratively reviewed. <br /> Mr. Crowe stated no but the petitioner can ask for an administrative review. Mr. Crowe stated <br /> that if the petition is passed by the City Council, the petitioner will need to give their alternative <br /> pavement request to staf£ Mr. Crowe stated that with this case, the first 100 feet and areas used <br /> for parking/loading space would have to be paved with an improv�d surface and any other I <br /> portion could be an alternate pavement. I <br /> Mr. Mickler asked whether the next step would be for the petitioner t litigate if he did not like ' <br /> the decision. Mr. Mickler added that this would be an extra expense r the City of Decatur and ' <br /> for the petitioner. I <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that yes, if the petitioner feels like the interpretatior� was in error. Mr. Crowe <br /> stated that he explained to the petitioner their options and what their rights are. <br /> Mr. Smith asked whether there was any compromise on the 100 feet of pavement. <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that the property owners wanted to go with a 25 foot front yard setback but <br /> staff felt like it was not a far enough distance. <br />