8/17/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 23. February 1997: Sabonjohn responds. 24. March 4, 1997: Board of County Commissioners grants final plat approval for phase (unit)1. Remainder of overall subdivision (Phase 2) is unplatted and originally called for 30 more lots. 25. November 1998: Sabonjohn requests planning division approval to pursue final plat approval for Phase 2. Planning confers with Attorney's Office. 26. November 30,1998: Attorney's Office issues "tten opinion that a new preliminary plat application is needed. Planning staff informs Sabonjohn that a new preliminary plat application and land development permit (or permit waiver) for Phase 2 will be required. 27. February 3, 1999: Sabonjohn appeals staff decision. 28. April 12, 1999: Staff and Sabonjohn agree on acceptable appeal hearing date: the April 22, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 29. April 22, 1999: Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on the appeal. Appeal denied and staff s determination upheld by a vote of 7-0. 30. May 6,1999: After meeting with staff, Sabonjohn appeals the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. Staff and Sabonjohn agree on acceptable date: August 17, 1999 Board of County Commissioners meeting. 31. August 17, 1999 Board of County Commissioners hearing on the appeal. Appellant's Argument The appellant argues that most of the Phase 2 improvements identified in the approved 1988 preliminary plat and the original land development permit have been completed. In the opinion of the appellant, no purpose is served by the Ie -application. Staffs Response Staff and the county have worked with the appellant over the years, granting extensions and keeping the final plat request "alive" for 5 years until the appellant could finally adequately resolve Phase 1 construction issues and produce an approvable final plat drawing. In regard to Phase 2, however, the approvals and construction drawings are simply too old and out of date to prove useful. New applications will allow an up-to-date review and ensure that approved, record drawings are up-to- date, even though the same general layout will likely remain the same. Perhaps the most significant impact on the project would be requirements for sewer service if 25 or more lots are proposed. Based upon such up-to-date record drawings (preliminary plat and land development permit), the project can be completed and inspected on a logical basis. If approval expiration dates are meaningful, then the approvals for the remainder of Oak Terrace (Phase 2) clearly passed long ago. It should be noted that the Board, on October 20, 1992, granted a 120 day extension to the land development permit. A request now, over 6 years later, to recognize that permit as still valid is contrary to the Board's last decision on that matter. AUGUST 17,1999 58