Agenda - 05-15-2001-9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

2( 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Selkirk asked Brown if he had received a response from the County Attorney to the letter of February 27, 2001. Brown said that he was informed that the County Attorney would get involved at the next level. Schofield verified with Benedict that, at the last meeting, the justification for denial was partly based on the fact that part of the land was not in the transition area and that it was not a last minute surprise. Benedict said that the applicant has looked at the maps and has seen where the transition areas are. He said that a portion of the-area to the north is clearly not within the transition area, and the applicant was in the office this week to verify that. He said that this area has no utilities on site and the only way for this site to get utilities is to go through other properties. He made reference to the standard letter and said that this letter was from the concept stage that there was a potential of availability for sewer services. He said that the letter from the County Engineer would probably have to be debated at the Commission level. He reiterated that there was no adopted plan to extend sewer to this area. Several clarifying questions were asked by Holtkamp and answered satisfactorily by Benedict. Katz asked Benedict if the agreement between the sewer provider and the developer should be in place before the developer can bring in a proposal such as this. Benedict said that in his opinion, a sewer agreement should be a prerequisite to a final plan. MOTION: 22 23 24 MOTION: 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Allison moved to deny the staff recommendation and approve the preliminary plan for McGowan Creek subdivision. There was no second. Woods moved to accept the staff recommendation and deny the preliminary plan for McGowan Creek subdivision based upon the fact that there is no designation from the appropriate utility provider for. sewer that sewer services will be provided. Seconded by Preston. Holtkamp made a friendly amendment that there should be further investigation as to the issue of the transition area line. The friendly amendment was not accepted. 32 Schofield made a friendly amendment to the motion that the preliminary plan be denied because the plan as 33 proposed is, in part, not within the defined transitional area. Benedict said that this was consistent with the staff 34 recommendation. 35 36 Strayhorn said that he would vote against the motion because he thinks the developer has had to act in the dark 37 and it has cost the developer a lot of time and money. He would feel more comfortable sending the plan to the 38 Commissioners with no recommendation at all. 39 40 Triebel said that it seems that this is a catch 22. 41 42 Selkirk agreed with Strayhorn. He said that the authority on this is the Board of County Commissioners. 43 44. Woods accepted Schofield's friendly amendment. 45 46 Chair Gooding -Ray said that she was confused as to why this has gone through really fast because the concept 47 plan was just approved in October. She is concerned about the transition area issue. 48 49 Schofield said that he added the friendly amendment because he thinks the certification issue is murky at best. 50 He does not believe that the staff has made any compelling argument that certification is required. He is 51 tempted to vote against this plan because part of this property is clearly not in the transition area and has been on 52 record since the last meeting.