Laserfiche WebLink
TH <br />TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES AND 27 AVENUE <br />CONCURRENCY – SHELBY HOMES <br /> <br />Joseph Paladin <br />, President, Atlantic Coast Construction, 730 Commerce Center <br />Drive, Sebastian, presented facts surrounding the vesting of concurrency on Shelby Homes’ <br />th <br />Millstone Landing project on 27 Avenue and the effects of the existing level of service. <br />He discussed the initial process of the application and subsequent actions taken by County staff. <br />He felt vesting was done incorrectly; was not valid; and, the concurrency should be put back in <br />place so all developers and builders can fairly work towards getting a building permit to continue <br />building. Since Millstone is to be developed in phases, he wanted to see Millstone vested for <br />Phase I only (copy of presentation on file). <br /> <br />The Board sought answers from County Attorney Collins on what could have gone <br />wrong in what appeared to have been a simple process. Attorney Collins felt it was all timing; the <br />acceptance of the application one day and the institution of the “pending ordinance” the next. He <br />also clarified that the application was put on hold, not denied. <br />Further discussion ensued and Community Development Director, Bob Keating, <br />gave a walk-through of the timeline for the application outlining the program. Among other <br />questions from the Board, clarification was sought on whether there was anything in writing and <br />did the applicant agree to accept less capacity. Director Keating said they had nothing in writing <br />and the applicant had verbally agreed to accept less. <br />Attorney Collins also supported the normal routine of the application and could not <br />see any attempt to circumvent because no one knew beforehand of the “pending ordinance”. <br />Discussion continued between the Board and staff regarding the denial process and <br />whether there was anything in writing to substantiate the requests. County Administrator Baird <br />reminded them that the applications were made ahead of the “pending ordinance” and staff could <br />not apply the rule retroactively. <br />JANUARY 17, 2006 15 <br /> <br />