We received an update from a member who was able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on the Four Seasons Phase 1 final subdivision approval.  Makes you speculate as to the real reason Commissioner Ransom’s rotation off the Planning Commission just happened to be the very meeting that this important item was rescheduled to appear on the agenda?  We sure wish he had been there.

First we would like to thank Member Frank Frohn for having the courage to speak up and vote against Four Seasons on several of the “finding of fact” issues as well as voting against the final Motion to Approve Phase One.  Member David Clark also voted against Four Seasons on some of the issues but we are not sure how he voted on the final Motion to Approve.

What do you say to the other members who chose to ignore:

4,410 voter signatures on the Four Seasons Referendum Petition

2,198 signatures on a petition to deny growth allocation

More than 600 citizens showing up at the high school at the Critical Area Hearing?

Here are some highlights from the notes sent to us:

Chris Drummond, the Planning Commission’s attorney, made it very clear to the Planning Commission members that the Four Seasons Developers Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (DRRA) settlement agreement did not apply to any decision the Planning Commission could make – that agreement is with the County Commissioners.  The question was asked – what is the affect of the DRRA and what recourse would they (Four Seasons) have?  The answer – assuming approval is denied for reasons that are not arbitrary and capricious, and that properly reflect what was in effect in Title 18 in 2002 (when the DRRA was signed), it doesn’t affect the DRRA.  The DRRA does not require the Planning Commission to approve the project – and the project could not go forward without Planning Commission approval.  (KIDL webguys asks of the reader... please read the last sentence one more time, it is a real eye opener). 

With that advice from their attorney, Chris Drummond led them through several finding of fact issues before the final motion.

It was clear that for each one, some members were trying to find excuses to be able to vote for Four Seasons.  For example, Member Gene Thomas at one point said that the use of the word “unacceptable” was their saving grace.

A couple examples of finding of fact:

That it is reasonable and orderly development that will not cause unacceptable traffic or safety conditions in the area.  (This is where the word unacceptable was their “saving grace”).

That is reasonable and orderly development and will not adversely impact services (water, sewer, fire, police, emergency).

That it is designed to be compatible with existing neighborhoods, or that adequate screening is provided.  (A couple years ago, one of the Hovnanian executives was quoted in a news article that they wanted to be the 800 pound gorilla in a few market.  So just how do you “adequately” screen the 800 pound gorilla?) 

Important Links...

• Ransom Removed From Planning Commission
• QAC Voter's Guide Lists Campaign Promises
• Anderson letter
• Cartoons, but right on the mark

KIDL Web Guy Says:  Write to our Commissioners!