2005-05-12 TYAMADA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Pawu? PAWU:Yes, Madam Chair. The Board, after much deliberation and many discussions with the applicant have decided that we would be willing to withdraw the contested case hearing only with certain conditions. And those conditions we would ask that if this Commission, this body, wishes to approve the permit, to definitely include them in there to protect the interest of our community. They are detailed by applicant in their statement. They would include that the developer will put a traffic light and other traffic improvement as detailed in their plan. And these improvements are to be completed and installed and operational at least 90 days prior to occupancy of the project. We have seen in the past where the project is complete and the infrastructure is not; and, therefore, were asking the developer to do what they have agree to do so. That developer agreed to pay the fees as promised in their letter to us dated th April 26 to it, 4 cents per square foot, a common area maintenance in the amount of approximately $1400 per month. In addition, a traffic impact mitigation fee of $10 per day should they decide to put in a fast food or drive-through restaurant, which were perceived as creating excessive trash. And the other caveat is, two caveats are that the lot is to be used as stated in their modified proposal and modified map that theyre showing today; and that is for a primary tenant to be a full-serviced grocery store with one smaller building only. And that is the project that we are willing to withdraw the contested case hearing, if it is kept to that plan, and not coming back for a change. Should the applicant come back to this body for a change in use, we would want to, again, contest that. The fourth caveat would be that they have asked for exemptions as items in their reason for approval, 14, they have A, B, C, D, E. We would like to add caveat E, and that is any extension of any of the conditions should not be contrary to the promises made by the developertoOrchidlandCommunityAssociation.Inotherwordswewouldnotwantthem coming back and saying they want an extension of time to provide because it wasnt possible, etc. We want that to be, they want that to be kind of clear with no loopholes. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr.Pawu. Is that the conclusion of your comments? PAWU:Well, the other comments are, that were made, we did, the motion to drop the contested case hearing was made by a motion at our meeting of 4/27. It was voted five for, one opposed, and one abstained, there are commentaries involved in that. One of the officers supported development if the light, with the light because he believes thats critical at this point that we have some traffic control along that highway. He also commented that we gain as a community by working with developers that are willing to work with us. We have another developer who has a special use permit granted by this body who was in gross violation of that permit; and not only are they violating their verbal promises and written promises that were made outside of this room, but they are threatening legal action against us if we try to enforce our rights to collect the maintenance fees from them. And, therefore, our body has decided that its in our interest to work with developers who are collaborative rather than confrontational. Another Board Member who happens to live on Orchidland Drive commented that if the development were to be solely along that corridor, Orchidland Drive would look like exactly 3 EXHIBIT A