Laserfiche WebLink
M And we fell a little short on that , also. <br /> M Mr . Chariman , Marilyn , for clarification on my motion , I think <br /> Jim pointed it out , I made the motion not to interfere with any court <br /> actions. It also gave the developer every opportunity to go on his <br /> own and do what he or she felt like doing, and evidentially I guess <br /> there was nothing done . And today we ' re confronted with , I don ' t <br /> think what was done in the past the thing we ' re talking about is <br /> what was done today along with what ' s the future going to bring . <br /> Jerry, are you in a position to develop that tomorrow? <br /> BB I have another stipulation later along in your new business <br /> to do the the assessments with the acceptance for your approval . <br /> M Oh, you ' re coming to the council for more assessments , is that <br /> what you ' re doing? <br /> BB The same thing where you tables us. <br /> M I see , OK . <br /> M Well, Mr . Chariman , I think the path is pretty clear-cut . <br /> B Any other questions? Any other comments? <br /> H I would like to make one comment because there has been a lot <br /> of focus on section 6 . 21 and I want to give you my opinion on what I <br /> feel the court would focus on here . This is really a question of how <br /> much activity is necessary by a land developer in order to have what <br /> I consider a vested right to continue that activity whether it ' s under <br /> a special use permit that is declared void under your ordinance , <br /> whether or not it ' s under a zoning classification that the city council <br /> subsequently rezones and prohibits this type of activity or whether <br /> or not it ' s on a plat where somebody begins activity to develop the <br /> plat and the lot size or something else changes and therefore becomes <br /> not in performance with what the city desires . That ' s what I 'm, how <br /> I feel the court would view that , not strictly on a construction <br /> basis but what activities has the individual developer undertaken to <br /> further assure permitted activity so that he would have the right to <br /> continue that activity in spite of the fact that the permit is now <br /> void or the zoning has changed . In my opinion , in looking at all <br /> of the activities and the amount of expenditure the developer had in <br /> here , I find it extremely hard to believe that a court is going to <br /> say at this point in time that the developer has not a vested right <br /> to continue under the permit . He has done everything in his power at <br /> this point in time to further the activities that were allowed under <br /> -12- <br />