AG19810316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CABARRUS COUNTY ~,'~l ,/~_'~:~. ~il Post Office Box 707 '~ CONCORD. NORTH CAROLINA 28025 MEHORANDUM TO: Charles D. bicGlnnis/County Manager FROM: W. S. Chandler, Jr./D±rector of Plann£ng~>~ SUBJECT: Appeal of Plann±ng Board's Dec£slon to the County Commissioners DATE: March 11, 1981 As per your request that the Planning Department submit a finding of fact statement as regards the intended transition of Paradise Village Mobile Home Park to a mobile home subdivision, more speci- fically, a Planned Unit Development; please find attached a copy of the letter sent to the developer advising him of the reasons that the preliminary approval of the plat was denied. It would seem as though the developer, in this case, might have the intention of playing the Board of County Conm~issioners against the Planning Board, or vice-versa. Within a five (5) day span, theN are asking for an appeal by both County Boards. Prior to any official notification from your office that the developer wished to come before the Board of County Con~issioners, the developer asked that another hearing be granted them at the March 11, 1981, Plann- ing Board meeting. This second audience before the Planning Board is, in fact, ~ighl¥ irregular in that the Subdivision Ordinance stipulates that upon receipt of official notification noting the deficiencies of the submitted preliminary plat, the developer has the responsibility of correcting the deficiencies and subsequently resubmitting the plat. Upon indication of resubmittal, the planning staff must, by ordinance, have the plans seven (7) days prior to the monthly meet- ing. To date, the Planning Department has not received any revised plans, but has received an indication from the developer's agent tha: no additional concessions would be made on the part of the developer. Therefore, zn the Planning Board meeting tonight it is anticipated that the Board will advise the developer that the Planning Board's decision remains firm until and/or unless an add- itional submission of preliminary maps mitigate the deficiencies originally outlined. Prior to the submission of the preliminary plat mnd before the February Planning Board meeting, the developer's agents met with the planning staff as many as three (3) or four (4) times. Dur- ing these meetings, the developer was advised that his proposal fell short of the snandards outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance.