Laserfiche WebLink
s <br /> 0 O <br /> I <br /> VARIANCE DECISION <br /> In view of the above, the proposed variance would not fulfill the intent of the <br /> Subdivision Code and does not meet with all the requirements or Rule 22-Water <br /> Variance. Therefore, the applicanfs variance application to allow proposed 6-lot <br /> subdivision without providing a water supply pursuant to Chapter 23, <br /> Subdivisions, Article 6, Division 2, Improvements Required, Section 23-84, <br /> Water Supply, (1)(2), or request to allow the proposed subdivision to be served by <br /> private catchment systems is denied. <br /> (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 150-154.) <br /> Appellants Jin and Lds Water Variance application stated that the sixty inch rainfall (or <br /> isohyet) line utilized by the Planning Department in reviewing water variance applications is <br /> located approximately"50 feet maukd'of the boundary of the Property, evidencing that the <br /> Property does not meet the rainfall requirement of Rule 22. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 44, <br /> 86.) <br /> B. The Appeal to the Board of Appeals <br /> On March 14, 2007, Appellants Jin and Lu filed a timely appeal from the Director's <br /> decision denying the Water Variance application to the Board (BOA No. 07-000043) seeking <br /> reversal of the Director's decision and approval of the Water Variance application on the <br /> grounds that the Director's decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and <br /> violated law and that, among other things, the Planning Department Rule 22 was arbitrary, <br /> capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and made on unlawful procedure. (R:CV07-1-261K <br /> Doc. 004 at 40,43-48.) The Board heard the Appeal on July 13, 2007. (R:CV07-1-261K <br /> Doc. 004 at 483.) <br /> At the contested case hearing before the Board, Appellants Jin and Lu were not present <br /> but were represented by Roy A. Vitousek 111, Esquire, and the Director was not present but was <br /> represented by Amy G. Self, Deputy Corporation Counsel. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 483- <br /> 484; Doc. 21 at 901.) Appellants Jin and Lu had the burden of proof, including the burden of <br /> 4 <br />