9/25/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She believed the reason for this tracking together was to approve them at the same time. Discussion ensued as to how this could be handled, and Chairman Eggert believed we could approve the D.O. as is and then amend it if there is a change, and Attorney Vitunac suggested that better yet - either withhold Board approval of the first part or make the Board approval conditional on a satisfactory D.O. being passed by the Board. Commissioner Bird asked if we couldn't just use wording stating that "No certificates of occupancy shall be issued for any portion of the subject project until the roadway improvements listed have been completed or sufficient funds to assure their completion have been escrowed." It was noted that under state law, that is not concurrency, and debate continued as to how the state would interpret this wording. Commissioner Scurlock questioned the Length of time it would take to get a letter from the DCA accepting our wording. He felt we need to defer this a couple of weeks until we can get the wording straightened out. Chairman Eggert noted that the other alternative is to approve the D.O. as it is with the understanding that on a time certain it can come back and be amended. Mr. Greco stated that he would rather not approve it with this language but would rather work on it for a week or so and go to Tallahassee with it to get -an answer from the state because they cannot. -live with it�this way. The Board continued to discuss whether we should proceed.to approve -the D.O.'the way it is, and then modify it if we can, and Attorney Vitunac assured the developer that the approval- with these conditions doesn't bind them to build the mall. Mr. Greco continued to stress that he would much prefer to leave this and come back in 3 weeks; however, after further discussion with his associates, he guessed it would be okay to SEP 2 5 199Q. 65 PO(�� ,. P4;r J'' C