Laserfiche WebLink
r� <br />FEBo 1985 BOOP{ 59 FIKU 96 <br />Commissioner Bird stated he also appreciates the effort <br />shown by the developer to answer our concerns, but if we vote not <br />to terminate the site plan, he would hope we will set ourselves <br />up on a time schedule as to how this will develop because he does <br />not want to be faced with this same situation a year from now. <br />Attorney Stewart promised that they will supply a <br />sufficiently detailed time table. <br />Attorney Brandenburg wished to point out that even if the <br />Board takes no action today on the d&termination to rescind the <br />site plan, that same ordinance provision is still in effect and a <br />year from now the Board still can call the developer back in and <br />pull the site plan. <br />It was determined that no one further wished to be heard. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously <br />closed the public hearing. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bowman, that, based on the repre- <br />sentations made today, the Board take no action on the <br />validity of the site plan; the developer to submit a <br />revised site plan, showing the changes mentioned today, <br />within two months, and Planning staff to monitor the <br />progress of the project and report back in six months. <br />Commissioner Scurlock commented that although he must agree, <br />as far as "good faith" is concerned, the progress made on this <br />project in four years stretches the imagination, he believed we <br />have significant differences between this project and Riverbend <br />and the Racquet Club. For example, Riverbend had to have a <br />change in zoning. He did believe that through this Motion and <br />the process followed, we have got the attention of the developer <br />and that it is a good compromise. The Motion gives the ability <br />56 <br />