|
- - - 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 or 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 I 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 /> applicant asked us to kind of lay out what we 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 that time 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 prior 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 headed 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 /> EXHIBIT C
<br />
|