Laserfiche WebLink
MAY 17 1988 <br />BOOK 72 F tGE 372 <br />5. The applicant has failed to provide sidewalks or agree to <br />escrow for same as per Section 15(k)2 of the zoning code; and <br />6. The applicant has not agreed to meet the requirements of <br />Section 23.3(d) (3) (e) (3) of the zoning code concerning paved <br />road requirements. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board <br />of County Commissioners deny this appeal and uphold the decision <br />of the Planning and Zoning Commission. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if the Board is considering today <br />only the facts as presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission, <br />and Mr. Boling said that was so, with one addition. Yesterday <br />the applicant came in with revised site plans and a letter that <br />is basically in response to our Agenda item. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that our Code rules are not clear <br />on this; however, by custom and history, we limit it to the same <br />facts as presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. If, <br />however, there is going to be an entirely new hearing today with <br />new facts that the Planning & Zoning Commission has not seen, <br />then the P & Z was not given an opportunity to do what it is <br />supposed to do. The pulse of this case, as it narrows, is that <br />this is really a new trial on this issue, and if there is <br />something dramatic that was not considered by the P & Z, who <br />should have had a chance to give an opinion, then the Board could <br />not consider it here. Otherwise, the applicant and his attorney <br />can reintroduce the same evidence, make their arguments again, <br />and get another shot at having their site plan approved. <br />Planner Boling advised that the applicant submitted a <br />revised site plan yesterday that addresses all 6 areas of <br />concern, and Chairman Scurlock felt then that if it is a new site <br />plan, it should go back to the P & Z for a new hearing. <br />Commissioner Eggert understood that the suggestion is being <br />made for possible consideration of something different than what <br />the P & Z Commission saw, and Director Keating stated that it was <br />not different. <br />29 <br />