1/23/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F - JAN 2 3 1985 BOOK 59 PA,E 665 been adopted. He felt, however, that the main issue today was to determine whether sufficient progress has been made in this case, and questioned the gap between June, 1984, when it appeared that sufficient progress was being made, and December, 1984, when the decision was made to request an abandonment of the site plan. Director Keating stated that it was due to what did not happen. He explained that he had based his letter of June, 1984 on the fact that a roof pump inspection was made in April and had indicated that it appeared that construction was continuing. He pointed out, however, that there was no further building related activity until November when the applicant realized that the site plan was coming up for review. Mr. Nutt stated that he would be willing to cooperate in any reasonable way to work with the County in regard to the new ordinances, but he did not want to commit to it. He felt he had been here too many times and has been delayed long enough. Commissioner Scurlock noted that if Mr. Nutt had made better progress, he would not be here today. Mr. Nutt stated he would commit to the completion of the project and showed a map indicating the utility and road work that has been done. Commissioner Wodtke felt that utilities and the beach acquisition possibility had caused Mr. Nutt considerable delay, but Commissioner Scurlock again pointed out that the utilities coming in only improved the value of the property. Attorney Brandenburg repeated his recommendation that the Board to postpone this matter, even if Mr. Nutt did not agree, in order to look at the effect the ordinances would have on the site plan as well as to relieve Mr. Nutt of any worries in regard to the densities allowed in the moratorium on development on the barrier island. Chairman Lyons felt that was a very good idea. Attorney Stewart was concerned about postponing this hearing because the discussions might not work out. He emphasized that 43