REC. CHANGES FOR SUBDIVISION OR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: The Mooresville Planning Commission October 21. 1999 A time for change and aecountabilitv in the Subdivision Plat Approval process The Mooresville Subdivision Control ordinance is very clear in establishing the required design standards. and the infonnation and details that are to be provided by the developer or petitioner in filing a plat proposal with the commission for primary approval. The intention, I am sure. is to ensure that a submitted subdivision plat proposal is eomplete, compliant with the ordinance, and is actionable by the commission when and as presented, This is not an unreasonable expectation, Therefore, one ean reasonably interpret that the intentional filing, or subsequent re-filing, of a materially ineomplete, inaccurate or non-confonning proposal before this commission, is an abuse of the publie hearing process. In filing a proposal before this commission, the petitioner and his professional representatives assert and attest that the proposal represents full complianee with all applieable standards and ordinances. Any and all deviations to the standards, and non-compliant aspeets of the proposal must be clearly stated, and justified as part of the proposal submission. Attempts to hide. or the failure to fully disclose defieiencies. or any efforts to misrepresent any material fact relevant to a proposaL arc clearly eontrary to the intended purpose of the public hearing process. and must not allowed to become accepted practice, Furthennore. it should not be the responsibility of the commission membership or the public to "catch" any non-compliant designs that may lie buried and hidden in a plat proposal. ~ The public hearing process should not be a process of financial attrition in which well funded developers repeatedly submit partial or incomplete proposals. then re-submit. withdraw, and re- submit rejected proposals with minimal changes until the commissIOners and public grow weary of the confrontation in protecting the public good. It is not the intent. that remonstrators would be forced to repeatedly seek expensive professional assistanee in protecting the standards and values of the community in which they live. from those outsiders who have the financial where-with-all to out-spend and out-last their valid objections. The time has eome for those who abuse this process to be held accountable for their actions, I respectfully ask that this commission consider assessing sanctions against those developers that abuse the hearing process by filing plat proposals that are incomplete. inaccurate. or non-compliant with the standards of the ordinance, Therefore. I respectfully make the following recommendations I, There should be a I year re-file waiting period for proposals that are rejected by the commission, 2, There should be substantially longer re-file waiting periods for proposals that are filed incomplete. that are materially in-aecurate, Dr that are in material non-eompliance with the standards defined in the ordinance, Developers should not be allowed to "slip something through the process" because it wasn't caught before approval of the proposal. '-.. 3, Even stronger sanctions are appropriate against a developer or petitioner, when they or their professional representatives make material misrepresentations of fact before the commission in an attempt to mislead the commission members or the publie in evaluating a proposal.