Laserfiche WebLink
<br />HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - DECEMBER 23, 1996 <br /> <br />Page: 2 <br /> <br />Chairman Hinton asked Thomas Majhan, attorney for Ms. Stimach, ifhe would like to comment? <br /> <br />Mr. Majhan stated that his understanding was that since the property had been valued by the Assessor's <br />office and taxed as having a full bathroom, that was what the Board was going to allow. As stated by <br />Commissioner Hinton, the number of bedrooms drives the size of a septic system not the number of <br />bathrooms. If you had approval for a two-bedroom house, you could have one bath or you could have <br />ten baths. The garage was built first and attached to the septic system. Then approval for the two <br />bedroom house was granted. So between the two buildings connected to the septic system, there have <br />been three bedrooms and it doesn't make much difference how many bathrooms there are. The <br />Assessor's records clearly indicate that it was taxed as having a full bath. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wojt stated that the pictures which were presented at the appeal hearing showed what was <br />there. The compromise that was reached was to allow Ms. Stimach to reconstruct the building without a <br />full bath. <br /> <br />Chairman Hinton asked for the motion made at the appeal hearing? Larry Fay stated the motion is in the <br />draft minutes. He noted that he had asked for clarification during the hearing as to whether restoring the <br />building to its original condition included a partial bath. There was a lot of discussion about it. Larry Fay <br />stated that he later had a discussion with the Assessor Jack Westerman, because of the question of the <br />Assessor's records indicating a full bath. Jack Westerman explained to him that assessments are done <br />based on the actual fixtures not just strictly on what they title something. Although the Assessor's <br />records indicate in the category "building size": 300 square feet, full bedroom and full bathroom, in the <br />category "Plumbing Fixtures" it specifically indicates: one sink, one toilet and that is it. They don't even <br />have a water heater indicated. This has been verified. Larry Fay stated that the Health Department's <br />view of the motion in allowing Ms. Stimach to refurbish the building to its original condition was <br />consistent with the Assessor's records, which included a toilet, sink and approximately 300 square feet of <br />living area. He read into the record the motion made at the appeal hearing by Commissioner Huntingford <br />which states: "He moved to consider the building an existing, legal, non-conforming use and issue a <br />building permit to allow Ms. Stimach to restore the building to its original condition and use as far as <br />utilities for sink, toilet, shower, those type of things. So what ever the previous use was, go back to that <br />previous use, and no expansion of those uses." <br /> <br />Chairman Hinton asked for confirmation that the motion included sink, toilet and shower? Larry Fay <br />repeated the motion. <br /> <br />Chairman Hinton stated that the shower was included in the motion. Linda Atkins added if the shower <br />existed previously. <br /> <br />Commissioner Huntingford stated that during the discussion in the minutes, he asked if the building <br />contained a complete bathroom facility with toilet, shower, sink, etc., and Ms. Stimach replied that when <br />she purchased the property it contained a toilet but no shower. He stated that he and Commissioner Wojt <br />did not feel an amendment to the motion was needed. He then read Commissioner Wojt's comments <br />made at the appeal hearing in regard to the Board's motion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wojt stated that it was his feeling that Ms. Stimach was comfortable with the Board's <br />decision. The concern is that the building does not become a house and that it will be used for what she <br />stated it would be used for. <br />