Agenda - 03-17-1998 - 9b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

to April 16, 1998. The consolidated Concept Plans for the remainder of the total development (Craig Manor, Guernsdale, University Trace) expired on May 20, 1997. On January 28, 1998, the Planning Department received the attached letter from the attorney representing the applicant and owner of University Manor requesting revocation of the subdivision approval. As stated in the letter, the owner "has entered into a contract to sell the entire subdivision to Durahill, LLC, on the condition that the County revoke the approval of the subdivision and that all easements and restrictions created in connection with the approval of the subdivision be terminated or withdrawn on or before April 1, 1998." There are potentially positive and negative effects that could result from a revocation of the approvals. From the County's perspective, one positive outcome would be relief of responsibility for monitoring the Conservation Easement and enforcing its terms. As long as the property remains undeveloped, there will be no added impacts on the natural environment, adjacent roads, or public service agencies such as law enforcement or schools. Negative aspects of the revocation include the loss of permanent open space and potential tax revenue from developed lots. Furthermore, the County and residents of the area are left with an uncertainty of future development plans. Any future development application submitted for the property will be considered a new request subject to all regulatory requirements, including Flexible Development provisions, that may be in effect at the time of submittal. The previously approved Preliminary Plan could be used as a minimum "baseline" for future applications, i.e., new proposals would be expected to meet or exceed the level of open space protection proposed in the first plan. If the subdivision approval is revoked, there would be no public purpose served by keeping the roads as public. Abandonment of the public roads would allow the owner the option to be gate the road as private property, or to remove the improvements, thereby avoiding potential problems with public safety and security of the property. A public hearing is required before the roads may be abandoned. From the developer's perspective, the revocation is generally positive, as he is able to sell to the prospective buyer and is freed of legal and financial obligations associated with development of the property. However, the developer forfeits the opportunity to sell approved lots. If the County does not agree to the revocation, the developer indicates he will proceed with the Final Plat for Section II of Phase I. As an alternative, the County may choose to revoke the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat, and abandon the public roads while retaining the 8.4 -acre Conservation Easement. If so, the County would