5/22/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M M by the County Commission and the way that has always been interpreted is that they are not subject to another review at that particular point in time. Director Keating felt the Construction Industry has a good point as long as it is kept to just the one extension and no more than two years after the initial approval date; the proposed ordinance requires them to resubmit. Commissioner Bird felt this would mainly pertain to large projects where there is still a lot of permitting to be obtained at state and federal levels and a lot of financing to be worked out after site plan approval is granted. Delays in these areas could result in construction not getting underway within a year, and in that case, the Board would consider granting an extra year's extension. Commissioner Scurlock understood then that our current policy has been to grant one extension even though it has not been set out in black and white, and he would have no problem with continuing that policy. However, he felt that we should make it very clear that only one extension will be granted because there are some site plans out there that have been just hanging for quite some time, and if we make the determination that a site plan is terminated, then, of course, they must resubmit under all the new ordinances that have been adopted since the time the site plan was originally approved. Commissioner Wodtke noted that on Page 5 of the proposed ordinance it states that we will not release the site plan until they have every permit that is required. He asked when the one-year timing starts, and Director Keating advised that the timing starts when the site plan is approved, but that does not preclude them from having started the permit process prior to getting site plan approval, which is the same provision as we have now. Attorney Brandenburg recommended that the last sentence be deleted in Paragraph 23.1.G (2) on Page 4 of the proposed 27 MAY 2 2 1985 BOOK 6`1 P T 2.007