My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/5/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
4/5/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:40:07 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:10:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/05/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3 <br />ASSISTANT PLANNER BERG STATED THAT THIS IS AN AMENDMENT OF <br />THE ENTIRE SECTION DEALING WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND IS A VERY <br />COMPREHENSIVE ADDITION TO OUR ORDINANCE. HE NOTED THAT THE ZONING <br />COMMISSION'IN THE PAST FRERUENTLY HAS NOT BEEN SUPPLIED WITH SUFFI- <br />CIENT INFORMATION TO ENABLE THEM TO MAKE A PROPER ANALYSIS. THIS <br />ADDITION LISTS IN DETAIL ALL THE ITEMS REQUIRED TO BE SET OUT'ON <br />THE PLAN PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION BEING SUBMITTED. IT ALSO REQUIRES <br />APPLICATIONS TO BE FILED AT LEAST 20 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING; THAT <br />ALL THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ERECTED MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE <br />SITE PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING COMMISSION; AND THAT ALL SITE <br />PLANS EXCEEDING A VALUE OF $5,000 MUST BE PREPARED BY A LICENSED <br />ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER. HE STATED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEELS <br />THE ORDINANCE IS A GOOD ONE, BUT POINTED OUT THAT THEY SUGGESTED <br />HAVING A TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE FOR MORE <br />EXPERTISE TO BE GIVEN TO A SPECIFIC APPLICATION. HE NOTED THAT THE <br />ZONING COMMISSION HAD NO OBJECTION TO THIS EXCEPT THAT THEY FELT <br />THAT IT WAS AN ADDITIONAL STEP TO BE TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT WHICH WAS <br />NOT ACTUALLY NECESSARY, MR. BERG AGREED THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE AN <br />ADDITIONAL STEP TO HAVE A TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, BUT FELT <br />IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO ALL CONCERNED. <br />ADMINISTRATOR .JENNINGS NOTED THAT THE WAY THE SUBDIVISION <br />AND MINING REVIEW COMMITTEES ARE SET UP, IT LEAVES IT UP TO THE <br />ADMINISTRATOR TO CALL IN SOMEONE WIWEXPERTISE IF IT IS NECESSARY, <br />HE STATED THAT HE WOULD PREFER TO SEE THE COUNTY HAVE A TECHNICAL <br />REVIEW COMMITTEE BUT ONLY REFER APPLICATIONS TO THEM WHERE IT IS <br />FELT SPECIAL EXPERTISE IS NEEDED. <br />ATTORNEY,COLLINS REQUESTED THAT THE PHRASE "WHEN SITE PLAN <br />APPROVAL IS REQUIRED It BE ADDED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PARAGRAPH <br />UNDER SECTION A ON PAGE 1. <br />THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. <br />.JOHN J. SCHLITT, .JR., ARCHITECT, INFORMED THE BOARD THAT <br />THE ARCHITECTS ARE VITALLY CONCERNED WITH THE COMMISSION APPROVING <br />THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL SEALON THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION. <br />36 <br />1978 aOOK 34 PAGE 2' <br />R <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.