Laserfiche WebLink
a <br />ATTORNEY GORDON .JOHNSTON APPEARED REPRESENTING MR. BELL, <br />DEVELOPER OF TROPIC GROVES. HE STATED THAT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE IN <br />THE SITE PLAN, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, AND THEY DO FEEL THEY <br />HAVE A VALID SITE PLAN. ATTORNEY .JOHNSTON NOTED THAT FROM A TECHNICAL <br />STANDPOINT, THEY WISH TO BE COOPERATIVE WITH THE BOARD, AND IN ORDER <br />TO EXPEDITE HIS CLIENT `S PLANS, THEY WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO HAVE THE <br />BOARD LISTEN TO THE APPEAL. HE FIRMLY STATED THAT BY NOT OBJECTING TO <br />THE BOARD'S LISTENING TO MR. ZORC`S APPEAL, THEY ARE NOT, IN ANY WAY, <br />ACKNOWLEDGING THAT MR, ZORC HAS A LEGAL INTEREST TO BRING FORTH THIS <br />APPEAL. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THIS WILL NOT BE A PUBLIC <br />HEARING AND WILL NOT HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED, BUT THERE SHOULD BE A TIME <br />SET SO THOSE INTERESTED IN THE APPEAL CAN BE PRESENT, <br />ATTORNEY DANIEL KILBRIDE, WHO REPRESENTS FRANK ZORC IN THIS <br />MATTER, INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY WERE INTERESTED IN HAVING THIS <br />MATTER RESOLVED AND WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM IN THE APPEAL BEING REVIEWED <br />AT THE BOARD'S NEXT MEETING. HE ASKED ABOUT THE REVISED PLAN BEING SUB- <br />MITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD EXPECTS TO GET <br />COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THE CHAIRMAN INFORMED ATTORNEY <br />KILBRIDE THAT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL BE <br />IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REVISED SITE PLAN AND THE <br />APPEAL. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STRESSED THAT SINCE ALL CONCERNED PARTIES <br />WERE PRESENT, HE DID NOT WANT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO.HAVE DAILY. <br />VISITS ASKING ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE TROPIC GROVE PLAN. <br />ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS THEN ASKED PLANNING DIRECTOR DAVID REVER <br />IF HE DOES HAVE THE REVISED PLAN IN ORDER FOR HIS DEPARTMENT TO BE ABLE <br />TO MAKE COMMENTS AT THE ,JULY 5TH MEETING, AND THE PLANNER REPLIED AFFIRMA- <br />TIVELY. <br />ANN ROBINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AUDUBON•SOCIETY, STATED <br />THAT THE SOCIETY WAS CONCERNED OVER THE ATTORNEY`S INTERPRETATION WHICH <br />DENIED.-, THE RIGHT OF ANYONE OTHER THAN A CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNER TO <br />APPEAL IF THEY FEEL A SITE PLAN IS DEFECTIVE. <br />28 <br />JUN 2 01979 1 mox .41 PACE 28 <br />