Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Item No. I <br /> SEPTEMBER 4, 1986 <br /> 1 . MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NO. SU-86-10 OF WOODSON ESTATES (C/O <br /> BAUMBACH & PIAZZA) for an appeal of staff ' s determination requiring <br /> the applicant to pay for the preparation of an Environmental Impact <br /> Report for an 94-lot rural residential subdivision, located at the <br /> northwest quadrant of State Route 99 and Jahant Road, Collierville, <br /> north of Lodi . <br /> Mrs . Walker introduced a staff report into the record. <br /> Mrs. Affonso said that she had not had the opportunity to review this <br /> report prior to today, but since reviewing it, she has concluded that <br /> the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. <br /> The issue before the Commission is whether or not the appellant is <br /> required to pay for the E. I.R. The Ordinance Code requires the appli- <br /> cant to pay for the E. I.R. and there are no provisions in our Code to <br /> allow the waiver of E. I.R. fees . The only basis for such a waiver <br /> would be to amend the text of the Planning Title. <br /> Further, Mrs. Affonso said that the previous E. I.R. was adopted. <br /> Thus, We must assume that the first E. I.R. was adequate and that this <br /> issue is not before the Commission. <br /> She went on to say that under State Law, any changes or new issues <br /> that arise that are found to be significant impacts, must be reviewed <br /> through an E. I.R. or mitigated before the E. I.R. is complete. Since <br /> impacts have been assessed as significant, we must do an E. I.R. and <br /> the applicant must pay for the E. I .R. This Commission does not have <br /> the jurisdiction to waive the fees. <br /> Mrs. Affonso noted that an appeal could be made to the fact that an <br /> E. I.R. is being required, but that is not the subject of the appeal <br /> before the Commission. <br /> PUBLIC HEARING OPENED <br /> PROPONENTS: Ben Schaffer, Lodi , was present to represent the owners <br /> of the property. He said they were not aware of the procedures. He <br /> asked to withdraw his appeal of the fee requirement and asked for a <br /> continuance to allow him to appeal the requirement of an E. I.R. Mr. <br /> Schaffer recited the history of the property. <br /> MOTION: Moved, seconded (Gillispie-Carter ) and carried by a unanimous <br /> roll call vote to accept the applicant' s request to withdraw his <br /> appeal so he can file a new appeal on the requirement of an E. I.R. <br /> Comms. Gabbard and Berglund absent. <br /> --------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />