Laserfiche WebLink
F' <br />SEP 211983 <br />PAGE e��Q <br />County rate payers. When the County took over that system <br />from the developer, there were representations that the <br />plant would be sufficient to handle all of the Vista <br />development, and, in excess of that, provide the County with <br />additional capacity. <br />Messrs. Johnston and Gaskill felt that was probably <br />correct. <br />Robert Keating asked the difference between the master <br />plan and the site plan and thought that the applicant <br />implied that there was vesting involved in this property. <br />He did not know how that was interpreted by members of the <br />Commission. <br />Chairman Bird did not know about vesting, but did know <br />that this property was always shown on the master plan as a <br />future potential commercial site. <br />Attorney Brandenburg explained that the existence of a <br />master plan category or of a zoning category does not <br />provide any vesting under the law. It has to be in <br />combination with other significant acts performed on the <br />part of the developer and acts of commission on the part of <br />the government. <br />Chairman Bird felt that the question today was, <br />regardless of past issue, what is the highest and best use <br />of this particular property. <br />Commissioner Wodtke, with the assurances that the <br />water capacity is there in accordance with the contract with <br />the developer, moved to approve the redesignation of the <br />Comprehensive Plan for this property. The Motion died for <br />lack of a second. <br />Attorney Brandenburg advised that if there is no <br />further Motion, the matter dies and the plan remains <br />unamended. He explained that there is no time limit to <br />changing the land use plan, and the Board could continue <br />to request changes once a year. <br />;2 <br />