Laserfiche WebLink
CATES OR <br />APPROVALS <br />DURING <br />LITIGATION <br /> <br /> the Planning Commission's recommendations because he felt the Queene <br /> Charlotte developers had been given adequate notice of the ordinance. <br /> He further stated that he felt it was a tragedy when the Baptist <br /> Church burned and continued-to be a tragedy that the siteRad remained <br /> a vacant lot. The motion to deny was seconded by 'Dr. Gunter. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Gleason said she felt the developer had not been given adequate <br /> notice 'of the passing of the ordinance which allowed him six months to <br /> break, ground because he had been previously told that he had 12 months <br /> to do so by the resolution that Council passed in July of 1980. For that <br /> reason, Mrs. Gleason said she would not vote to deny the amendment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck expresged his agreement with Mrs. Gteason because he felt <br /> that the developer had been led to believe he had 12 months after liti- <br /> gation. He supported Mr. Warren Martin of the P.lanning Commission who had <br /> stated that six months was not a long enough period of time for a builder <br /> to break ground following .a 2 - 4 year delay. M~r. BuCk stated that in <br /> the time that elapses many factors cahrchange such as sales agents, <br /> financing, etc., and he felt that the purpose of granting the extension <br /> was a matter of equity and denial would give an unfair advantage to the <br /> opponents of the project itself. <br /> <br /> Dr. Gunter said that while she had not been on Council when the <br /> ordinance was passed, she felt that if the developer was interested in <br /> building in Charlottesville h.e should have made an extra effort to keep <br /> informed of Council's actions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that after viewing minutes from the meeting of <br /> <br /> January S, 1981 when the public he~ing was held on the ordinance, he <br /> felt Council had not taken into consideration the impact the ordinance would <br /> have on the prewious resolution they had passed concerning Queen Charlotte. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wiley stated that' Mr. Fisher, the develOper of Queen Charlotte, <br /> had relied on Mr. Wiley to a great extent to keep Mr. Fisher's lawyers <br /> informed and that through an oversight on his part, be'had failed to <br /> notify them of the ordinance and did not think it was reasonable to <br /> expect them to know of the ordinance otherwise. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that the developer should not be penalized because <br /> had, in essence, met the requirements for the proposed building. Mr. <br /> Hendrix said he did not feel that six months was enough time to reassemble <br /> the marketing package and financing'for such a project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Conover said he felt that the City should maintain some control <br /> <br />of a project ~fter a~'~.period of years has passed because circumstances <br />surrounding the area may change. He said he felt the notice of the <br />public hearing when Council passed the ordinance in 1981 was adequate for <br />the developer to have known. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he felt that if, after a lapse of a few years <br /> <br />a developer wanted to return to Council with a new design proposal, the <br />developer would want to believe that Council would deal fairly with him. <br /> <br /> The motion to deny the amendm~n~.~was defeated by the following vote. <br />Ayes: Mr. Conover, Dir. Gunter. ~oes: Mr. Buck, Mrs. Gleason, Dr. Hall. <br /> <br /> The motion to approve the ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND <br /> <br />AND REORDAIN SECTION 31-279.1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, <br />!9~6, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SUSPENSION OF TIME LIMITS ON PERMITS, <br /> <br /> <br />