2/5/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r I FEB 5 1991 BOOK 8 2.0 PAEE 582, information must be contained in the submittal, and that this submittal lacked sufficient information to start the review process. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that they had to comply with two specific items: 23.2(f)(10) and 23.3(f)(1)(a)(2), and felt that if Mr. Lappeman could show what his submittals were, then maybe the Board could get.to whether or not they were sufficient. Mr. Lappeman noted that a reference was made this morning that this was a hurried application, but judging from his invoices, he could only see that it was made with constant trips to the county over this issue. It wasn't an issue that polarized onto a single date or a deadline by one day. It wasn't as highly imperative as all that because for 10 months this has been very much under the auspices of the P&Z and Kimley-Horn. Mr. Lappeman wished to make it clear that this was not just a sudden impulse thing. Commissioner Scurlock asked whether someone was here from Kimley-Horn this morning to discuss the information that they submitted, but Mr. Lappeman stated that they discussed that at the P&Z meeting. Just he and his wife are here this morning. The reason Kimley-Horn is not here this morning is because he has had a dispute with them over other issues not pertaining to this one. Commissioner Eggert asked why this matter wasn't easily resolved by the submittal of the additional information required for a complete application, but Mr. Lappeman didn't know. He noted that he was only the party that is concerned with the property and the development, and these are issues that are sort of out of his surveillance because he is hardly here. Commissioner Eggert was distressed when a situation Aike this comes up because through the years she has been very aware of how careful staff is in seeing that applications are complete, but at the same time how willing they are to work with applicants to see that they are complete. Commissioner Scurlock asked if staff would again identify the two exhibits that were submitted in an attempt to comply with the environmental survey requirements, and Director Boling advised that the vegetation survey was deficient as was the report that was submitted with the original materials which gave a discussion on the project and the acreage of the upland berms. It did not give acreage of any other type of wetland on site. There was a follow-up letter on September 24th from Jim Young of Kimley-Horn which again referred only to boundaries and where the boundaries might be for the wetlands. 24