Oppose: The current provision for 3 year approvals work fine. In Missoula developers are able to propose a phasing plan to allow phased improvement installations. The "mutually agreed-upon" language is ambiguous. Does that mean the governing body can't deny a request? Additionally, the requirement that the "agreed upon" approval must be in writing and signed by the governing body chair and the subdivider's agent, seems like a lot of unnecessary administration and makes it seem more like a 'contract' rather than just a subdivision extension approval. In summary, doesn't seem necessary and also may cause problems. Denise
Pat O'Herren writes: "no concerns"
ReplyDeleteDenise Alexander wrote:
ReplyDeleteOppose: The current provision for 3 year approvals work fine. In Missoula developers are able to propose a phasing plan to allow phased improvement installations. The "mutually agreed-upon" language is ambiguous. Does that mean the governing body can't deny a request? Additionally, the requirement that the "agreed upon" approval must be in writing and signed by the governing body chair and the subdivider's agent, seems like a lot of unnecessary administration and makes it seem more like a 'contract' rather than just a subdivision extension approval. In summary, doesn't seem necessary and also may cause problems.
Denise
Let's pass lobbying this one
ReplyDelete