|
CHURCH: It’s difficult to be hard and fast. I like Perry’s idea, but let me just give you an
<br />example. I like the idea off the cuff that oh yeah you can’t extend it for a new applicant, but,
<br />okay, so a lot of applications come on a corporate basis, so I can keep the same applicant, just
<br />change the stock ownership and so forth. To the extent that extenuating circumstances and
<br />words like that get crafted into the rules, there are ways to get around them, and so I think it’s
<br />difficult to be hard and fast. But I would encourage with regard to some of these rule changes to
<br />be hard and fast on this.
<br />
<br />DARROW: Okay, thank you. So, continuing on, so the, Commissioner Carr Smith brought up
<br />the matter of reversion that the, you know, the applicant request or the Planning Director; what
<br />we normally see is an applicant is requesting reversion because they couldn’t comply with the
<br />conditions of the ordinance. But again, reversion would be to, back to a zoning that now is really
<br />not the appropriate zoning. So this brings the matter that Mr. Van Pernis brought up of keeping
<br />the zoning in place, that the owner or applicant cannot do anything on the property until they are
<br />able to move forward with compliance, come back in, get either new conditions or updated
<br />conditions. That normally, the problem that happens with that is the applicant has already started
<br />something, right? You have something that was half-built or you have some use – I’ll give you
<br />an example, there’s one on the east side that’s a large property that’s now zoned Industrial that’s
<br />got 3, 4, 500 cars on it, junk cars, because that’s what they use the Industrial zoning for, and they
<br />want to revert it because they can’t do the conditions. That can’t happen, so they either got to
<br />clean it up and fix it up or come back in and do compliance, it’s kind of a tough situation. Order
<br />to show cause, you had brought that up, so that is something that we are looking at. I’m thinking
<br />that you are thinking that’s a good idea, correct?
<br />
<br />CARR SMITH: I think so, and further, I wondered about requiring showing progress
<br />especially—
<br />
<br />DARROW: Yes, normally—
<br />
<br />CARR SMITH: —for additional time.
<br />
<br />DARROW: Yeah, as Commissioner Church mentioned, we, for larger projects, we put in an
<br />annual progress report condition. That lets the Planning Department know where they are at.
<br />It’s, it’s unfortunate, but as mentioned, there are applicants that just don’t even comply with that
<br />simple requirement. We have to contact them and say hey you’ve got to give us an update on
<br />what’s going on. And unfortunately, a lot of times it’s “Applicant will comply,” “Applicant will
<br />comply,” “Applicant will comply”; nothing has been done, you know, and so you can see this
<br />project is going to be one of those that’s going to have to come back to the Commission and/or
<br />Council. And, has anything changed since they first came in, you know, or are they at a position
<br />now to be able to move forward, or are we just going to keep getting the same reports? I agree
<br />that we should try to get uniformity with the time frame, so we can work on that in our rule
<br />change, 60 or 90 days prior.
<br />
<br />I think that’s it. Are there any questions or comments—
<br />
<br />26
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|