|
- - - one zoning. So there is precedent to that. So the way I would look at it is that if there is a
<br />condition, for example, an added condition to require the applicant to submit a rezoning application
<br />maybe within 60 days after Plan Approval of the, you know, like the standing application, that can
<br />be done. And I would think it can be done. And such that, if the CN zoning ends up like in this
<br />quagmire that we have right now, then, you know, like, it can be denied. But nevertheless, the
<br />applicant has the basic right to proceed based on the current RM zoning.
<br />CARR SMITH: Thank you, Sid. Anybody else? Hi Faye, go ahead.
<br />YATES: - - - meetings, etcetera, that they went through, and there were some revisions or some
<br />changes that they wanted to have made that they said, no, they weren't willing to do it. Does that
<br />matter? Or was that, or did I misunderstand that? Based on what Christian had said about making
<br />some changes, but, what you call, they said that they could not qr would not or. I'm a little confused
<br />about that.
<br />KAY: I'm sorry, Commissioner Yates, can you- repeat the question? I" didn't quite catch the first
<br />part.
<br />YATES: Yeah, well, you said that there were some changes or -some suggestions' -on the, you know,
<br />on the Commissioners' part to, they are making some changes or revising some changes, and they
<br />said they could not or would not. Or' -did -1 misunderstand that?
<br />CARR SMITH: - - -, yeah..
<br />KAY: Yeah, if I understand your- question, at the June meeting there was a motion to move forward
<br />with, to try and have the`,County and the applicants;'as well as the prospective buyer, try to come to a
<br />mutual agreement to move'forward with a favorable recommendation. As part of that process, the
<br />j
<br />applicant asked ,us -to kind of lay out what ewe would. need as the County to move forward with a
<br />favorable recommendation, to move from our` unfavorable, which was based on our analysis of the
<br />General Plan, the CDP; and -,.all the other reasons, we went unfavorable, to try and get to a favorable.
<br />During`thatAime we did lay out those three steps, one of which was to rezone the Suffolk property to
<br />CN, to develop.the master plan` -and the ,conditions based on that master plan, the master plan being
<br />consistent with _what the CDP asked for in_a`master plan, and third being that the master plan be
<br />vetted by the Design Center priof'to coming back to the Planning Commission. It was on that point,
<br />or the, essentially, the points that would take more time beyond August or September of this year,
<br />the applicants seemed'very, uncomfortable, or did not want to move forward with those suggestions.
<br />Based on that, we were heacled.impasse, and those were the things that I was saying the applicant
<br />wasn't willing to do. And I think Sid just kind of confirmed that in his testimony before based on
<br />his reasoning.
<br />YATES: Okay—excuse me—but the other previous conditions that, or concerns that we had as a
<br />Commission, all those have been addressed—
<br />KAY: Um, the -
<br />23
<br />DRAFT
<br />
|