REGULAR MEETING February 21, 2008
ROOM 301, THIRD FLOOR,
GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING
1:30 PM - Convene, Corinne Les Callette, Chairman
1:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – TEXT AMENDMENT – Add a new Code section and definitions regarding Adult Entertainment Uses – #SP-0803 (J. Lenox)
REVISED SIGN PLAN/BUILDING COLORS/TIRE & BATTERY STORAGE EXPANSION – WalMart Store #1890 - 2702 N. Salisbury Blvd. – General Commercial District – SP-9112-08Y; M-29, P-507-4, G-5 (G. Smith)
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – Shopping Center – Bayside Real Estate, Inc., represented by Thomas W. Hayes – 1303 South Salisbury Blvd. – General Commercial District - #SP-0802; M-117, P- 3119, G-3, (G. Smith)
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - EXTENSION OF TIME - Village at Salisbury Lake PRD #11 – Salisbury Mall Associates, LLC - #SP-0611; M-109, P-2505, 2518, 2520, 2581, 2582, 2581, Pad 8, Block D, and 2581, Pad 9, Block D, G-2 (G. Smith)
SALISBURY – SOUTH DIVISION STREET/CAREY ANNEXATION – Zoning Recommendation – 1.0 Acres; M-48, P-221 & 222, G-8 (G. Smith)
REVISED SIGN PLAN – Beaglin Park Plaza Condominiums, represented by Michael Weisner – Mt. Hermon Road – Light Business and Institutional District – #SP-8606-08C - M-121, P-2574, G-21
AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION DISTRICT – Holloway District – Little Lane, near Hebron - M-19, P-12 & 91, G-9 – 118.0 Acres (G. Smith)
COUNTY SUBDIVISION PLATS: (C.Ward)
Retrievers Run Preliminary 19 Lots
Esham and Bob Smith Roads
The Plantations Lot 37 Preliminary/Final 1 Lot
Deerfield and Riggin Roads
WICOMICO COUNTY & CITY OF SALISBURY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE – (J. Lenox)
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
4 comments:
But Mike Dunn said they were rarin' to go -- a year ago -- and now this:
EXTENSION OF TIME - Village at Salisbury Lake PRD #11 – Salisbury Mall Associates, LLC
Isn't this "failure to file a plan" what Hovnanian is suing them about?
I'd love to know what the "behind the scenes" connections are on this thing. WHY would the administration (Tilghman, Dunn & Co.) be SO ANXIOUS for this project to go through? Remember Dunn flipping out when the County Council said NO to the TIF?
There's gotta be more to this than meets the eye.
Those TIF bonds were never issued and sold -- let's call the whole thing off.
From what I have read, Hovanian is backing out due to a timeline schedule clause that was in the contract now a year overdue. Which should mean thier contract should be null and void.
Way to "stick it to the man" Hovanian!
Post a Comment