3/28/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vice Chairman Eggert returned to her concern about the intent of "substantial construction" as she didn't feel that it is enough to just require a foundation to go in. Mr. Boling explained that the foundation is just the first deadline proposed, and it is a 210 -day deadline. After that there is the 24 -month deadline for shell construction, which is the roof, walls, and basically everything in the exterior. Actually, there are two deadlines that start at the same time. Commissioner Scurlock asked where the hammer is if that doesn't happen, and Mr. Boling felt it is in Items #2 and #3, where upon a year, the County may revoke the mall site plan approval. Vice Chairman Eggert pointed out that we still could be sitting there with just a lovely foundation, and Mr. Boling said that was correct. Commissioner Scurlock asked what impact this would have on the D.R.I., and Mr. Boling pointed out that unless you require substantial deviation or some other type of review of the D.R.I., it would not have an effect. It would have an effect on the local site plan, however. Commissioner Scurlock felt that is a big hammer when you say to them that they are going to have to pump another $300,000 into this project, and Mr. Boling agreed that is certainly a bigger hammer than just local review. Steve Henderson, attorney representing the developer, felt the Commission realizes that this project won't go forward without financing or anchor tenant leases, and once those are committed, the project is definitely committed. He didn't feel there are any guarantees that anybody can give to say that every project is going to go forward totally and successfully. He emphasized that the County has provisions in its ordinances which require continuous construction and various other hammers. He believed that they have dealt with the hammer, which in this case, is requiring substantial deviation and D.R.I. review. That 29 MAR 2 a 1989 ROOK 76 `'.AGE 69