My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/11/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
12/11/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:47 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:02:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/11/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
and that is when they filed a challenge. He stressed that in <br />their application, they have attempted to put together a package <br />of development standards they can live with. Everyone likes the <br />conditions they have developed, but they don't like the density <br />that drives the conditions and they need a density of 1/21 in <br />order to cluster the property effectively and to do the things <br />they have said they would do. Mr. Watts advised that he is not <br />authorized to amend the application before the Board; so, the <br />Board either will have to accept their application or reject it. <br />Attorney Vitunac asked Director Keating if there was any <br />reason we couldn't do the same as we did with Mr. Poppell's <br />property, i.e., say we go along with the stipulated agreement but <br />we like Alternate B and forward their proposal as an alternate, <br />Director Keating did not think the Commission would be <br />precluded from making changes to any recommendation and sub- <br />mitting whatever it wants whether or not it is the applicant's <br />recommendation. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if we don't have the ability to <br />forward something other than what the applicant has requested - <br />in other words, do we have an alternative between 1/21 and 1/40? <br />Attorney Watts advised that their opinion on that is that <br />while the Board may administratively initiate an amendment of the <br />Land Use Plan that would change the density from 1/40 to 1/5, <br />they do not now have such an amendment pending, and the applicant <br />would be entitled to notice and a full opportunity to respond to <br />that amendment before it could be considered. He, therefore, did <br />not feel this could be before the Board today, but noted that <br />doesn't mean the Board can't do it without their consent. <br />Attorney Vitunac noted that the problem is that this is not <br />part of our Compliance Agreement; so, the only issue on the table <br />is the challenge filed by Coraci, and if he withdraws it,.we <br />would have to initiate our own. Right now, we are riding on his. <br />Attorney Collins further noted that when we entered into the <br />Compliance Agreement, the Commission directed us to accept any <br />E 011 X990 85 BOOK <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.