4/7/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 7 198 Committee. As to being beyond the transition period, he blamed this on the erroneous information he received in a letter from the Planning & Zoning Department which stated that he was included in low density under the old Plan, which was incorrect, and which further incorrectly stated that the old Land Use Plan called for 3 units an acre for this property. After receipt of this letter, he got -his attorney involved, which caused the delay. Mr. DeJoia felt strongly that consideration should be given to the fact that when he first submitted his applica- tion, the old CLUP was in effect. He emphasized that he has tried to comply with everything required of him, but unless he could be sure he can have at least 6 duplexes and 3 single family homes, it would not be economically feasible for him to develop in a mobile home area such as this. Senior Planner Challacombe informed the Board that he did speak to Mr. DeJoia a year ago, stating that there was no moratorium and told him to build before the Plan was in effect or change his plan, which was the standard answer. - Mr. Challacombe stated that the old Plan shows low density' for this property, not medium density, and it was 0-4 units per acre. Mr; DeJoia noted that even conceding that point, it would allow up to 4 units per acre, which he falls under. Discussion continued in regard to a possible extension of the transition period, and the point was brought up that at the time of.site plan review, the county will look at the single lots involved rather than the entire subdivision. Commissioner Lyons agreed that since the lots undoubtedly will be sold individually, the main concern is what you can put on each lot, not the overall amount, and he, therefore, felt all the argument about 14 and 16 units really doesn't have any bearing on the problem. 44