Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Private & Independent Schools
Reply to "Big GDS news"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous]That's a reasonable summary of the PUD standard, actually. A project does need to be "not inconsistent" with the comprehensive plan, but the plan consists of numerous elements. Do you contend that no project GDS can propose at the height and density it is asking for can be not inconsistent with the plan? If so, to what law and precedent do you cite? [quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Northwest current story laying out the details of the issue[/quote] Thanks for pointing to the Current’s article this week. It was an interesting read. Also interesting that the ANC chair (and I think he is a lawyer) doesn’t seem to have a working knowledge of regulations for planned unit developments. The Current quotes him as saying: "The law permits explicitly that if the benefits are great enough and the harms are significantly mitigated this is permissible." He seems to view this as a regulation that allows for “pay to play,” provided they claim that they have mitigated some of the harms. In fact, in order to approve a proposal, the Zoning Commission must find that the proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, GDS is proposing a high-density project on a site which the Comprehensive Plan designates for low or moderate density development. It is inconsistent with the Comprehensive plan. If the Zoning Commission follows its regulations, they will not schedule a hearing unless the scale of the project is reduced significantly. They won’t begin to evaluate the benefits until they have a proposal with a much lower scale, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, although with heights and densities might exceed that allowed as a matter of right, bringing in the need to evaluate their mitigation measures and benefits. [/quote][/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics