1/23/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n s ✓ } r } f "b�,.3 . el that is not under dispute . The developer was feeling frustration and having to incur extra expenses on the redesigns and was unable to move forward . He asked the Commissioners to help find a way to put an end to the process , giving the County what it wants in an efficient and timely manner . Vice Chairman Stanbridge responded that the nine month process did not concentrate on the historical road . There were other aspects of the project that the HRAC did not have , such as the safety issue which had to be worked out by Public Works . This most recent plan looked fine to her, but she was only the Chairman of the HRAC . She felt the other members should have the opportunity to see the plan before the Board moved it forward . Her questions were 1 ) who will micro - site ; and 2 ) will there be canopy trees . Both times it was before the HVAC , the plan was that the whole 70 feet of that right- of-way would be clear ri cut and every tree would have been eliminated down that road . She did not think a negative message was being sent to the community . She felt the community wanted to know that the Commissioners were protecting their heritage . Mr . Jacques asked if the HRAC could be authorized to give the final approval so his client could proceed from that point . If that was not possible , he asked how long this might be delayed . Vice Chairman Stanbridge suggested the Board defer this to the first meeting in February and in the meantime she would bring it to the HRAC members for their comments to be brought to the Board ' s first meeting in February . Mr . Jacques appreciated the Board ' s concerns for the developer and agreeing to speed up the process . Vice Chairman Stanbridge WITHDREW her motion , and Commissioner Adams WITHDREW her second . January 23 , 2001 811 ! iOPG858 72 N IT , IT 4 Ilk IT tl fr j