My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/16/2006 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
05/16/2006 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2022 11:08:53 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:15:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/16/2006
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
4924
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Commissioner Wheeler questioned whether the granting of this extension required that a <br />new permit be issued; what requirements needed to be changed, if any; or, was it all already <br />covered? He wanted to see everything already up-to-date. <br /> <br />Planning Director Stan Boling explained that for both of these applications the site plan <br />extension requests are under the current requirements in place today. He further explained in <br />detail the buffers, proposed walls, and planting densities that would have to be increased to meet <br />proposed requirements. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wheeler preferred to see this brought up to current standards than coming in <br />under the old standards. <br /> <br /> <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Lowther for <br />discussion, to have CJM get a new permit under the <br />new regulations, under the standards adopted today, <br />with conditions. <br /> <br /> <br />Attorney DeBraal cautioned that that might be difficult because the Board had not passed <br />the new requirements yet. He also did not think the Board would have authority to tell an applicant <br />to adhere to laws that have not yet been passed. It would have to be a voluntary action on the <br />applicant’s part. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wheeler suggested they table this item for three weeks until laws are in <br />place. <br /> <br />Attorney DeBraal put another consideration to the Board - whether the Board traditionally <br />granted these sorts of requests without question. He did not think it would be fair to hold CJM’s <br />project to the new standards when we have treated other developers differently. <br /> <br />Discussion continued regarding expiration of the permit and whether it is a quasi-judicial <br />matter. Attorney DeBraal affirmed that it was a discretionary matter that the Board may have and <br />not quasi-judicial. <br /> <br />Clarification was sought on the Motion. Commissioner Lowther said that if Commissioner <br />Wheeler’s Motion was to have them bring this up to current standards and the applicant does not <br />have to start the process all over again then he would keep his “second”. <br /> <br />May 16, 2006 16 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.