Minutes 01/27/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CONCLUSION WE feel that sufficient proof has been offered to prove that Adkins Construction Corporation did not develop the Royal Oaks Townhouse properties as it said it would, AND that it failed to comply with the provisions of the Special Use Permit issued on January 12, 1994. Further, the violations we have cited are continuinf, and vet unresolved. Therefore, the Application for Extension must be denied. In the Alternative, or in further support of the above: WE have submitted sufficient proof that Adkins Construction Corporation did not submit a proper Application for Extension, AND/OR had no le2al standing, to request an Application for Extension of its Special Use Permit. In the alternative, or in further support of the above: WE have submitted sufficient evidence that the Permit has expired, and therefore, the City Council has no authority to vote for the Extension of the Special Use Permit. The Planninp Commission has no authority to modify (extend) the Special Use Permit, its authority beinp advisory only. In support of all of the above: WE submit that Adkins Construction Corporation would not be harmed bv any action of the Council to deny or otherwise refuse to ~rant an Extension of the Special Use Permit: 1. It does not lose any property; 2. It retains its special use exception as to properties upon which construction has been completed, and the ri~,ht to complete Phase X; and 3. It may reaDPlY for another Special Use Permit.