Our HOA was subsequently notified by an adjacent property owner and did submit a letter objecting to the exception, however, due to the limited time available to respond by the comment deadline, their response lacked sufficient detail of substantive issues.

Zoning Administrator failed to document the basis for the issuance of the exception

Over a period of about two hours on February 15, Mr. Greg Scott reviewed all available Planning and Zoning files, electronic and hard copy, related to this exception and found no evidence of any report, memo or other written document that provided a basis for granting of this exception. Mr. Scott spoke with Ann Johnson, Gary Pittman, Joyce Seveland and Debbie McIntyre during the visit and asked each one if there were other records available and none were revealed. Yet, the letter of approval to Mr. Hagan (on file), dated January 30, 2007, gave no basis for approval, nor did the letter to the adjacent property owners (on file), dated January 29.

Also, on February 21, Mr. Scott spoke by phone with the Zoning Administrator, Mike Chadwick, about the apparent absence of a documented decision basis. Mr. Chadwick stated that there was no documentation of his decision in the file and none was required. He said, ?“it is inherent in the Zoning Resolution?” that he can grant an exception without a documented reason. His statement is not in compliance with the criteria established in the Zoning Resolution for granting an exception, which Mr. Chadwick cited in his January 29 response letter to the adjacent property owners (on file). And, it effectively renders the notification of adjacent property owners and subsequent comment process, also cited in the Zoning Resolution, completely useless.

We find the absence of any record of approval to be an incredible oversight, as it gives the impression that the County considers an administrative exception a right of the developer without any real regard for the right of other property owners. As equal taxpayers in Jefferson County, we request equal treatment and consideration under the Zoning Resolution, and that has not occurred in this case. If an exception is the rule, then there is no rule.

Zoning Administrator failed to respond

The letter from the Zoning Administrator to the adjacent homeowners gave only cursory response to the rather detailed letter of comment sent by the adjacent property owners (dated January 12, 2007, on file) and did not respond to the specific request for a public hearing on this case.

One significant point made by the adjacent owners identified the absence of a coordinated review of this development, and the request for and subsequent granting of, multiple exceptions and variances for the same development. The letter suggested that if the development cannot meet several established regulatory standards then perhaps the property should not be developed, and that the County does not appear to take its standards very seriously. No response to this comment was offered, nor was any explanation of the basis for approval of the exception.

In the absence of any stated or documented basis for granting this exception, yet with the acknowledgement of multiple exceptions, it appears that the County has made this decision with total disregard for its own procedures and criteria, rendering that decision arbitrary and capricious.

continued, Part 6 (final)