My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REC. CHANGES FOR SUBDIVISION OR
Town-of-Mooresville
>
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON LINE
>
MINUTES
>
Plan Commission
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
REC. CHANGES FOR SUBDIVISION OR
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2005 10:12:45 AM
Creation date
5/20/2005 11:50:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Plan Commission
NAME
CHANGES
Plan Commission - Type
Minutes
DATE
1999-11-10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />The current process seems to be one where developers come bdòrc the commission with proposals <br />that they know are not acceptable. then they negotiate over the subsequent months to add only what <br />is absolutely needed to obtain approval. This is a process that heavily favors well-funded <br />developers who can play the game for long periods. Thisalso creates unnecessary work. <br />aggravation. and frustration for the commissioners and the public. and gives rise to suspicion over <br />all development in the community, It becomes a process wherein the developer eventually gets what <br />he wants because the public. and eventually, even the commission members, grow tired of the <br />ongoing battle, This is a good strategy for the developers, because they ean take credit for giving to <br />the eommission things that should have been in the proposal from the beginning. However. this <br />cannot be the proeess that the legislature had in mind in creating the state statutes on development <br />planning and the public hearing processes that govern local planning control. <br /> <br />Requiring a waiting period for re-filing rejected proposals will ensure that developers more <br />thoroughly evaluate the proposed development for its impact and aeceptability to the eommunity so <br />that they may get their plans approved on the first pass in order to avoid the re-filing wait. This <br />will bring project proposals that arc better thought out. more acceptable to the communitv. and that <br />are complete when presented to the eommission and the public at the hearing process, <br /> <br />Furthermore. the assessment of penalty sanctions. such as significant additional re-filing waiting <br />periods against those who abuse the hearing process and those who willfully mislead or <br />misrepresent material information before the commission. will ensure that the commission and the <br />public arc fully informed and aware of all pertinent information about proposed developments, <br />Only then can the commission fully execute its governing responsibilities to the commUnlt\, <br /> <br />'-.. <br /> <br />Respecttully Submitted <br /> <br />2J.,} yá'Y <br /> <br /> <br />Robert Giger <br />2390 Rooker Road <br />Mooresville. Indiana <br /> <br />---- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.