6/18/1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN 18.1975 ON PAGE 5, PARAGRAPH 7, SUB -PARAGRAPH B WAS CHANGED, ON PAGE 6, PART 1 - THERE WAS A PARAGRAPH G, REGARDING STATE PERMITS BEING COMPLIED WITH, THAT IS NOW DELETED. ON PAGE 8, THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT TO MEASURE IMPACT ON EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS -THAT HAS BEEN DELETED. ON PAGE 9, PARAGRAPH C, SUB -PARAGRAPH 1 - THE LAST LINE SHOULD BE "PLANNING DEPARTMENT." ON PAGE 10, PARAGRAPH 9, SUB -PARAGRAPH E, FIFTH LINE - THE WORD "MAY" SHOULD BE "SHALL." ON PAGE 11, PARAGRAPH G, FIRST LINE READINGe'N...?DEVELOPMENT NOT EXCEED..." BE CHANGED TO READ ".,,DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED..." ON PAGE 11, PARAGRAPH I, SUBPARAGRAPH A - THE TOTAL OF PER- CENTAGES DOES NOT ADD UP TO 100%. ON PAGE 12, PARAGRAPH J - SOMETHING LEFT OUT. MR, KRAMER STATED THAT WE THINK ADLEY AND ASSOCIATES' PROPOSAL WOULD BE A MUCH SIMPLER AND MUCH PREFERRED APPROACH, BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO WORK WITH THIS ORDINANCE, WE AGREE WITH ATTORNEY BURCH THAT PAGE 1, PARAGRAPH C, SHOULD BE DELETED, PAGE 2 - SUB -PARAGRAPH "CONTIGUOUS" SHOULD BE CHANGED, PAGE 2 - SUB -PARAGRAPH "FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN" - THE DESIGN RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS SUB -PARAGRAPH, PAGE 3 - PARAGRAPH 2 - SOMETHING IS OMITTED, PAGE 3 - PARAGRAPH 2 - SUB -PARAGRAPH 'B" AND "C" - WE FEEL THERE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC APPROVALS, PAGE 5 - PARAGRAPH 7, SUB -PARAGRAPH "A-1", SECOND LINE READING "..,AND THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN,.." BE CHANGED TO READ "...AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN,,," PAGE 6 - PARAGRAPH I - "COMPLETE DISCLOSURE" SHOULD BE INCLUDED, PAGE 6 - PARAGRAPH D - MR. KRAMER QUESTIONED IF THERE IS A SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, PAGE 9 - PARAGRAPH 8 - MR. KRAMER URGED THE BOARD TO PUT IN REQUIREMENT THAT ALL UTILITY SYSTEMS MEET REQUIREMENTS TO INCORPORATE THEM INTO A COUNTYWIDE SYSTEM, 32 r,nr 99