My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comment (8)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2015
>
PDT 15-1
>
Public Comment (8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2015 4:07:00 PM
Creation date
12/4/2015 1:52:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CHAMOTEE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
11/3/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORS' FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />2 EC 9.7007(2) requires an applicant to hold a meeting for surrounding property owners <br />3 "prior to the submittal of an application." EC 9.7007(12) provides that "if the site plan <br />4 submitted with an application does not substantially conform to the site plan provided at the <br />5 meeting, the applicant shall be required to hold a new neighborhood/applicant meeting." <br />6 Prior to submitting its application, West Creek met with surrounding property owners. As <br />7 described above, during the proceedings before the hearings officer West Creek submitted an <br />8 alternative site plan seeking a 47-lot PUD and that site plan was ultimately approved. <br />9 In its appeal to the planning commission, Southeast Neighbors argued that the <br />10 planning commission should require West Creek to hold a new neighborhood meeting based <br />11 on the modified site plan seeking a 47-lot PUD. The planning commission concluded that <br />12 EC 9.7007(2) is an application requirement rather than an approval criterion, and that because <br />13 West Creek's initial application was deemed complete, the planning commission had no <br />14 authority to require West Creek to meet again with the neighborhood and surrounding <br />15 property owners. Record 28-9. In its fifth assignment of error, Southeast Neighbors argues <br />16 that the planning commission misconstrued EC 9.7007(2) in refusing to deny the application <br />17 based on West Creek's failure to hold a new neighborhood meeting. <br />18 West Creek responds, and we agree, that the planning commission correctly <br />19 concluded that it did not have the authority to deny the application based on EC 9.7007(2), <br />20 where there was no dispute that West Creek held a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting <br />21 its application, or that the site plan submitted with the application was the same site plan <br />22 provided at the meeting. EC 9.7007(2) is concerned with ensuring that an applicant meets <br />23 with the neighborhood and surrounding property owners prior to submitting its application <br />24 and that the site plan submitted i0th the application does not differ significantly from the site <br />25 plan provided at the meeting. EC 9.7007(2) plays no further role after the application is <br />26 submitted. <br />Page 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.