Laserfiche WebLink
concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission." <br />(Emphasis added.) See Exhibit I. It is true that the conditional <br />use permit was subject to certain conditions. Nevertheless, it is <br />illogical to assume that the BOCC intended to deceive Brannan by <br />stating that the conditional use permit was approved but then <br />conditioning that approval to the point where it is physically <br />impossible to implement the use to which the conditional use permit <br />applies. One must assume that the actions of the BOCC were <br />reasonable. Thus, Condition No. 6 must be interpreted in a fashion <br />that maintains the BOCC's express intention to approve Brannan's <br />conditional use request. <br />Brannan believes that Condition No. 6 has to be read in the <br />context of the original staff/Planning Commission/BOCC approval <br />process. Condition No. 6 was carried forward by the BOCC from the <br />Planning Commission's recommendation and should be interpreted in <br />the context of its adoption by the Planning Commission. The <br />condition relates solely to Mrs. Allen's property which is <br />surrounded by Pit 29. <br />Brannan believes that the Chairman of the BOCC was, in his <br />approval letter to Brannan, attempting to clear up the confusion <br />about where Mrs. Allen's 1,000 foot buffer area began. Did it <br />begin at Mrs. Allen's place (as indicated by the Planning <br />Commission minutes, see Exhibit E) or at Mrs. Allen's property (as <br />indicated in the Planning Commission letter to Brannan, see <br />Exhibit F, and the Planning Director's memorandum to the BOCC, see <br />Exhibit G)? By modifying the language of Condition No. 6, the BOCC <br />,a~..,...~..~,.~ 9 <br />