2004-09-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 Mr. Schilling asked if we open ourselves up to liability if we treat the Hydraulic Road site plans differently from the others, and Mr. Brown said no, though it would have to apply to all applications that made the September 15th deadline if Council agreed those would be excluded from the ordinance. Mr. Lynch said if we agree that all the projects have to be evaluated under the new ordinance, there would be the opportunity for administrative waivers and the possibility of appeals. He asked Mr. Tolbert to speak to that. He asked how long it would take to get through this process. He also asked how the ordinance would affect the Mt. Zion Church project. He said it would take quite awhile to get through the process. He said we would not know how individual projects are affected until the project engineers provide that information. At a minimum, he said the project engineers would have to say the project is in compliance. Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Tolbert said that some of the projects have been in the works for quite awhile. Mr. Caravati asked if the requirements of the Corps of Engineers are stronger or weaker than our ordinance, and Mr. Tolbert said theirs are more onerous than ours if they apply. Responding to a question from Mr. Lynch, Mr. Tolbert said that the Union Bank project would have to be completely re-engineered in order to comply with the new ordinance, and he does not know if they could meet the criteria. Mr. Lynch said he would like to see a more detailed analysis of the environmental and financial impacts of these projects, but Mr. Tolbert said the City's engineering staff cannot re-evaluate these plans, the private developers would need to do it. He said there would be a financial impact on every one of the projects. Dr. Brown said that the stream ordinance is important and is a chance to address environmental health issues, and he has been frustrated that it has taken so long to develop the ordinance. He said he supported having the ordinance be effective immediately, but after the vote he was not sure it was fair to the projects in process that had applied. He said fairness works both ways. He said he would draw the line at those projects officially accepted, and would support amending the date to allow site plans officially accepted for review as of the vote on September 20th. Mr. Schilling said he asked the City Attorney if Council could review the ordinance anew. He noted that he wanted to vote for the ordinance at the last meeting, but his motion to change the effective date failed. He said he would have voted for the ordinance had the effective date been different. Mr. Caravati asked what "officially submitted means," and Mr. Brown said those projects submitted on the date of the submission deadline. Mr. Caravati made a motion that all site plan applications submitted to the City Department of Neighborhood Development Services on or before September 20, 2004 be reviewed in accordance with the land use requirements in effect as of that date, and not be subject to any new requirements contained in the City Water Protection Ordinance adopted on Monday, September 20, 2004, and Mr. Schilling seconded the motion. Mr. Brown said that the effect of this motion would be that all the site plans on the list provided by Mr. Tolbert and the Hydraulic Road site plans would not have to comply with the new ordinance. Ms. Hamilton said she is not interested in derailing development plans, but is also very supportive of the aims of the ordinance. She said she has a sense of urgency because it has taken some time to get the ordinance together. She said she does not think she can support allowing site plans submitted by either the 15th or the 20th to not comply with the new ordinance. She said the ordinance allows mitigation plans and waivers.