Laserfiche WebLink
that the systems were designed for the gallonage requirement <br />and paid impact fees for the full 92 units. <br />Commissioner Lyons noted that sewer service has been <br />prepaid for 28 units, but 64 units still have to be paid, <br />and Mr. Zorc stated that they were told they could pay these <br />fees as they were built and that is the way it has been <br />done. <br />Attorney Brandenburg agreed they have paid for the <br />water, but they would get a refund if there were not able to <br />get all those units. He noted that Pair. Zorc's contention is <br />that they have vested rights because they were required to <br />size the lines for the total gallonage of the units. <br />Commissioner Wodtke stated that he personally was aware <br />that when this project was laid out, it was laid out as a <br />package, and he saw no problem with allowing the remainder <br />of the lots to develop in the same configur titian as long as <br />we have the ability to do so without setting some <br />precedents. He asked if we have to make a determination if <br />there are any vested rights. <br />Attorney Brandenburg emphasized that under the <br />Comprehensive Plan, the only way they could proceed with 8 <br />units would be on a determination that vested rights give <br />them a right to develop at that level, and there are three <br />criteria for making this determination. <br />Chairman Bird, who was on the Planning & Zoning <br />Commission, when this project originally was considered, <br />believed that the concern at that time was the uniqueness of <br />this type development. The unusual thing about this project <br />was,that Mr. Zorc was selling these lots to individual <br />owners, and they could built 8 units, a duplex, a quadru- <br />plex, etc.; they may all come in and request to build to the <br />maximum. <br />Discussion continued regarding the criteria for <br />determining whether they have vested rights and what act or <br />93 <br />APR 6IN3 <br />