Laserfiche WebLink
of monitoring the progress, and if things are not done according <br />to ordinance, we have the ability to step back in and initiate <br />the process again. <br />Commissioner Wodtke wished to know who makes the <br />determination of how the coastal setback will be considered. <br />Director Keating stated that he did go over this in detail <br />with the applicant, and it was brought out that staff had a need <br />for further information. Three alternatives were identified: <br />1) we could do nothing about it; 2) we could require setting back <br />some arbitrary distance; or 3) it could be left flexible with the <br />applicant presenting information showing that there is a need to <br />setback further or no need. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed we may want to change the <br />coastal construction setback at sometime and change it for <br />everyone; he did not feel we can be arbitrary and do it just for <br />this developer. <br />Attorney Stewart stated that obviously, if in Mr. Nutt's <br />estimation and that of his engineer, there is a problem with the <br />coastal setback, it will have to be dealt with. He continued <br />that virtually everything in staff's report has been agreed to, <br />but he wished to verify what was understood with regard to the <br />three laning. <br />Commissioner Scurlock -stated that his Motion was based on <br />the agreements the developer has reached with staff and that did <br />not include the three laning. <br />Chairman Lyons noted that the developer has agreed to submit <br />a timetable, and he wished to know if we judge its reasonableness <br />as a part of our acceptance of the project. <br />Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that any timetable sub- <br />mitted must meet the good faith requirement of the ordinance in <br />order to keep the site plan valid. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. <br />It was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />57 <br />BOOK J <br />I <br />