Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />January 9, 2002 <br />Page 28 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />stated the new Comprehensive Plan guides the property for single family, sewered <br />development. <br />Mr. Rafferty questioned how the applicant would be affected by the tabling of the request <br />or a delay in the City’s decision, which at this point he did not believe would be <br />favorable from the Planning and Zoning Board. He acknowledged that even if the Board <br />recommended denial, the development will be reviewed by the City Council, however, he <br />believed the Council will have the same difficulty in making a decision. He noted if this <br />was the case and the Council denied the request, the developer would have to wait one <br />year before reapplying. <br />Mr. Peake stated he would be pleased to continue working with the City toward an <br />alternative that will work. However, he noted the applicant was under the eminent threat <br />of a building moratorium, which would not allow the luxury of having this matter tabled. <br />He believed there may be an opportunity for the City Council to waive the moratorium <br />for this proposed development in order to further pursue alternatives that work for Mr. <br />Vaughan, the City and the neighbors. He stated if the development would not be affected <br />by the moratorium he would be willing to accept the proposal being tabled. <br />Mr. Rafferty noted the moratorium will only be in place for 12 months and he was not <br />certain the proposal would be approved as submitted, which he believed would be more <br />damaging to the applicant than the moratorium. <br />Mr. Peake stated the consideration of this proposal must be done in the spirit of <br />cooperation and indicated Mr. Vaughan has been very willing to work with the City and <br />has not been rigid in his expectations. <br />Mr. Peake felt that the impending moratorium directly conflicts with the settlement <br />agreement because he did not believe the City could cooperate with Mr. Vaughan and <br />preclude him from requesting the continued development of the island. He felt that Mr. <br />Vaughan should be given the opportunity to continue working with the Planning and <br />Zoning Board and neighbors to determine whether there were some reasonable solutions. <br />However, there are time constraints. <br />Mr. Rafferty noted the moratorium would appl y to any preliminary plats not approved by <br />the effective date and he questioned whether the applicant was attempting to move too <br />quickly with this development because of the pending moratorium. <br />Mr. Peake believed that the impending moratorium was forcing both the Planning and <br />Zoning Board’s hands as well as Mr. Vaughan’s hands. He expressed his willingness to <br />continue working with the Board, the City Council and staff in attempting to design a <br />development that will work. However, if Mr. Vaughan is precluded from doing this by <br />the moratorium then he felt the City is not accomplishing its job and Mr. Vaughan can <br />not obtain that which he has a constitutional right to. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated the Planning and Zoning Board is not required to make a decision <br />based solely on the possibility of a future moratorium.