Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 18 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Continued from page 1
statute was intended to provide in a subsequent land use decision involving substantially similar issues,” according to the letter.
Also, Konick pointed out that County Attorney Luke, in a Sept. 21 letter directed to the board, advised Supervisors the state’s attorney general is of the opinion that no public hearing is necessary “to determine whether or not the location of the proposed facility is substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan.”
However, Luke added that the opinions of the attorney general “are not binding on any court, should the county be sued over the location of the dog pound.”
In addition, the Konick letter, dated Oct. 31, suggests that the Supervisors’ actions raise “a number of serious substantive and procedural legal issues.” They include: The proposed animal shelter is not a use permitted by right in the zoning district in which the property is located^! does not appear that the county health department has approved the use of existing septic systems for the purposes shown in the plans attached to the building permit application; no development plans have been submitted in accordance to provisions within the zoning ordinances.
“For these reasons,” the document states, “the building permit issued on Oct. 16 may be invalid as a matter of law.”
87.1%