Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 27'992 e®oK 4S us 758 <br />Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would have a <br />difficult time saying evidence had been presented showing <br />that this site plan would affect the health, welfare and <br />safety of the public. He did believe the site plan will be <br />void because of the Board decision not to allow the cut and <br />asked if there could be a Motion stating that because of <br />this decision, the site plan should be resubmitted or <br />possibly voided. <br />Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that the Board does <br />not have the authority under the Code to send back site <br />plans or ask that they be modified. There is an appeal <br />process. <br />Discussion followed as to denial based on improper <br />procedures, and Commissioner Lyons stated that he was <br />willing to include in his Motion a reference to the <br />procedures followed as a reason for denial of the site plan. <br />Commissioner Fletcher concurred. <br />Commissioner Bird stated that he had a problem with the <br />Motion based on either the affect on the health, welfare and <br />safety of the public or on the procedural question. He <br />pointed out that a site plan review is not like a rezoning <br />where public hearings are held and public notices sent, etc. <br />It is an on-going process, and he felt if our staff was not <br />prepared that night to have a full discussion, the developer <br />should have been notified so they would not have brought in <br />people from all around the state at considerable expense. <br />Commissioner Bird felt any problem here is an in-house <br />problem and not the fault of the applicant. He believed <br />Mrs. Eggert ran the meeting as best she could and did not <br />believe any information was supressed deliberately. <br />Chairman Scurlock stated that his problem is that <br />people specifically wanted to participate and because of <br />information given out by the Planning Department, they did <br />not attend. <br />52 <br />-1 <br />