Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />March 12,2019 <br />would say significant progress, given Ms. Morris and her team and Al and his team here, <br />particularly, on the plan and all the other issues. When we look at the plan specifically, there are <br />identified items to be corrected and it is not an issue of there being gray areas or unknown areas <br />that need to be dealt with, so we know those specifics that need to be corrected and we are going <br />about doing that. So, to compare it to three months ago, six months ago, we can predict that in <br />the next few weeks, we will be wrapping up all of the issues. We have been here for, this is our <br />fourth hearing. I am sure you guys are tired of seeing this come up on the agenda over and over <br />agam. <br />We are at a point now, where we know what needs to be done, based on your feedback and based <br />on the County's feedback. I think with the conditions that the County has approved, we can leave <br />here knowing exactly what we need to do and work with the County to get that done, as opposed <br />to having to come back here a month after month. So, we would ask that the Board consider that <br />and the conditions that the County has proposed and that we do not oppose and consider <br />approving that so that we can go about working directly with the County to resolve those issues. <br />The only two issues that I have seen that are the biggest concern to the Board are the plan, the <br />landscape plan. I have mentioned we have a specific task to correct that and the glare study. We <br />know exactly what we need to do with the glare study. So, I am not sure what benefit it would <br />serve any of the parties here to have to come back to rehash those issues, when our instructions <br />are clear. <br />Mr. Paxton said, at the beginning of this meeting, the attorney said there were five questions or <br />five positions they needed clarification on. Are you prepared to work with staff to get those <br />clarified or were those with the Board? <br />Mr. Gittens said those were with staff, but those questions were answered during the course of <br />this hearing. For example, Canada, open building permits, electrical permits, we just wanted to <br />know specifically what were we talking about there, because our understanding was it was <br />limited to electrical permits of a small portion of Canada. That was one of the issues that we <br />wanted clarified; it has been clarified. <br />Some of the other issues that we wanted to discuss further: we are willing to , given the status of <br />each one of these items; glare, landscape. We are willing to just work directly with the County, <br />knowing what has to be done, whereas before the hearing, it was not absolutely clear because we <br />didn't have the board's position on some of those items. But, now we do and we can waive <br />raising those issues with you and proceed with the conditions that the County has suggested, if <br />the Board would agree to that. <br />Mr. Corley said I will tell you why personally, I do not agree. I do not agree with that plan, <br />because I feel it is our responsibility now. This board did its job the first time. I feel we did a <br />great job the first time. Some things went wrong. You mentioned being up here four or five times <br />I agree, and dang it, to be brutally honest, I think you guys wasted the first two times we were up <br />here. We were bombarded with information that was incorrect, not complete, just this cyclical <br />55