4/22/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Ginn stated that it is impossible to change things once they are in place. She believed that WaiMart should take into consideration the desires of the citizens who really want to preserve the quality of life and the beauty in Indian River County. Chairman Eggert had a question about the pending ordinance doctrine and was concerned about anything that might be legally questionable. It was her understanding that the County did not have any teeth in this. Director Keating related staffs position on this matter which was that any approved requirements that go into place before the submission of the modified plans would be applicable to that project. Staff assumed the intent of the Board was to make modifications, as the task force came to a consensus on additional requirements. They have tried not to give anyone any surprises as the process has evolved. They have been working with Mr. Wallace, and others at Kimley Horn, to try to inform them of what the task force was doing. Nothing should have been a surprise to them The date to consider is the date they actually submitted their modification, which was just a few weeks ago. County Attorney Vitunac asked if the application was complete on April 0, and Director Boling replied that he believed it was sufficient, that there were discrepancies that they would have to address. Mr. Wallace reported for the record that the application was submitted on the 20 of February, the pre -application was on the 171. To his knowledge it was deemed complete on the 24!`. County Attorney Vtunac opined that whenever the applicant has submitted a completed application, it is subject to whatever regulations are in place in the law on that date, including any pending ordinance doctrine. He believed that WalMart could not be forced to comply with a plan adopted today if they had a completed application which was submitted prior to today. He suggested it might be more economical for WalMart to change their plans than to face a possible legal challenge, and they would have better community support. Ms. Motley emphasized that they were not trying to create legal issues here. They are saying that they have tried very hard to work with everybody. There are two issues that have not yet been settled. She explained that the costs involved are very critical on this particular usage, and they are just asking for the Board's help on what has been called a "moving target". She pointed out that Wa1Mart has been very cooperative in terms of trying to comply as much as possible. They are asking for some understanding on the couple of items that have come up just in the last couple of weeks so they can get the Sam's built. Mr. Roseland understood WalMart's two concerns to be 1) additional costs related to delay, and 2) the reduction of the sign from 24 feet to 7 feet. He reasoned the cost for a 24 -foot sign has to be substantial. WalMart could take the savings on the larger sign and let it pay for the split -face on the back of the building to satisfy the concerned residents who have to look at it for the life of the building. Mr. Wallace took exception to Mr. Roseland's over -simplification of the two concerns. He 37 April 22, 1997 BOOK 10.E PAGE UD