Laserfiche WebLink
why they wanted the whole amount. But anyways, me personally, I would have to, wading <br />through all this information, I would have to say that I would support the Director's decision <br />based on what has been presented and all the evidence and stuff, and whatever I feel <br />personally about, it doesn't matter. I have to decide based on the evidence, and that would be <br />my decision. <br /> <br />ADAMS: Thank you. Commissioner McIntosh. Commissioner Burns, do you have comments? <br />BURNS: Yeah. I mean, I concur with what Lee just stated. I mean, just going off the evidence of <br />what I read, through all the papers we were given. I don't see anything presented that shows <br />anything to really clearly show that there shouldn't have been that designation, considering <br />that as far as I can see, the unit is in those properties receiving water,and then you have a <br />dwelling with fixtures that are draining to the sewer. So yeah, I can't see, it's just not clear to <br />me that there was a blatant mistake made and that there should be anything to overturn it, the <br />decision. <br /> <br />ADAMS: Thank you. I'll put in my two cent, Georjean Adams. I, too, feel that the interpretation <br />and application of the two units is a reasonable interpretation, and within the discretion of the <br />Department. It is a long time interpretation of the requirements that you got a toilet in there <br />and it can be used. Whether it is used or not, it is hooked up to the sewer. So I think it is a <br />reasonable application. And as I understand it, the Department has offered the solution is, <br />don't have those facilities in that storage room. So I too, would affirm the Director's decision, <br />and insofar as Rick was talking about splitting the two, the fact that traditionally, sewer <br />engineers consider a Y connection to be a separate connection to the sewer is a legitimate one. <br />If it had run straight into the house and then it was the house going to the lateral, I could see an <br />argument for why it's not a separate unit. And the fact that the charges have been there for <br />years is also not a compelling argument in my mind. So that would be my decision to affirm as <br />well. We appear not to have consensus. I don't know if we want to take a vote, a roll call vote. <br />WONG: Sorry, Chair, if I may. I believe Commissioner Gaffney wanted to say something and <br />then Commissioner Fulton. <br />ADAMS: Rick, you had more comments? <br />GAFFNEY: Yeah, well, the one other comment that I would make with regard to this case, and <br />I'll probably make this in the future at Environmental Management Commission meetings. One <br />of my big takeaways from reading all of the documents that were provided to us in this case is <br />that the County laws are really, really poorly written, and part of the reason for my belief that <br />the decision the director made is erroneous, is that the County also shows that they have been <br />picking and choosing the language from various parts of the county code that they use to <br />support their case without looking at what's logical, and clearly logic was not part of the writing <br />of the ordinances, or the rules originally, because in my mind, this is clearly a single family <br />dwelling and per that part of the definitions, I believe that it's erroneous to charge them for <br />two sewer fees when it's clearly a single family residence. The fact that at some point in time it <br />37 <br /> <br /> <br />