Laserfiche WebLink
, I <br /> <br /> TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1998 <br /> wrongs do not make a right, and that there was more information to work with now than when the original <br /> <br /> permit. was granted. He stated that Council should vote on the extension of the existing permit, or not issue a <br /> new one. Mr. Pritchett came fortyard again to state that the real issue was that the current permit was poorly <br /> <br /> worded, vague, and does not protect the community. In addition, Mr. Pritchett stated that no new site plan <br />/~'~had been filed and, due to the fact that the project had been developed in a manner other than the original <br /> <br /> plan, the project could no longer be done in compliance with the approved site plan requirements. Thus, he <br /> stated, the Council had nothing to vote on. Mr. Pritehett stated that the current Special Use Permit is not <br /> sufficient to address the changes needed, the residents had made a proper case for this, and the developer had <br /> failed to develop the property as promised. He stated that requiring the developer to get a new permit would <br /> prompt a new site plan to be developed to meet all needs and requirements, and the developer would come <br /> back and get a new permit and file a new plan accordingly. He closed by stating he hoped the Council would <br /> rule wisely, and that they could make good policy without further harming property. Mr. Sweezy came <br /> forward to reply that all recreation areas called for were still in the site plan, and have not gone away. He also <br /> <br />stated that he hoped that Council realized the benefit of the development to the City, that Mr. Adkins has <br />cooperated with the City and worked diligently to complete the project, and that the project had been done <br />well. He went on to state that the minor nature of the problems cited was evidence of Mr. Adkins substantial <br />compliance with requirements. Mrs. Haskell noted that she was still particularly interested in the issue of <br />sediment and erosion control relative to the development. Mr. Keim came forward again to state that the <br />developer could not meet the requirements in the site plan regarding recreation areas without making <br />significant changes in both the plan and the grading of the property. He also stated that the original reason for <br />the development of this property was to create more housing stock in the price range of the units in question. <br />Mr. Keim stated that a survey he had done of the housing market in Martinsville showed 75 to 85 houses <br />currently available on the market in the $50,000 to $99,000 price range, thus negating the need for more. He <br />stated that there was more of a need to protect the existing housing stock than build more and allow older <br />homes to run down without residents. Mrs. Kate Wilson of 900 Dundee Court spoke next, stating that there <br /> <br /> <br />