My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/26/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
10/26/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:40:08 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:43:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/26/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE IS CONCERNED RIGHT NOW <br />WITH THE ENTIRE STATEMENT. LET US ASSUME, FOR INSTANCE, THAT BY 1990 <br />WE WILL NEED SO MUCH ACREAGE IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL; HOWEVER, IF A LIGHT <br />INDUSTRIAL PLANT CAME IN HERE RIGHT NOW, THIS COUNTY IS IN NO WAY ABLE <br />TO PROVIDE SERVICES NEEDED FOR THEM. ARE YOU STILL SAYING WE WOULD <br />`HAVE TO ISSUE PERMITS? <br />DR. ORMAN FELT THAT IF THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE ALL THE <br />NECESSARY SERVICES FOR THE INDUSTRY, THEY COULD DENY IT. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT.IT CAME ACROSS TO HIM THAT <br />AUTOMATICALLY SOMEONE IS ENTITLED TO THE ZONING. <br />MR. ORMAN NOTED THAT USUALLY THE ZONING CERTIFICATE INDICATES <br />THE PROPOSED USE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING MAP AND REGULATIONS. <br />HE STATED THAT YOU HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACCORDING <br />TO STATE LAW. IF A PERSON WANTS TO BUILD A PLANT ACCORDING TO YOUR <br />PLAN BUT DOESN'T HAVE THE NECESSARY WATER AND SEWER, ETC., YOU CAN <br />DENY IT, BUT IF HE CAN SUPPLY ALL THIS, THEN YOU ARE BOUND TO GIVE <br />HIM THE PERMIT. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT MR. PUTNAM MADE A STATEMENT THAT <br />INDICATED IF THE BOARD MADE THIS CHANGE IN THE MASTER PLAN THAT WE <br />WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE UTILITIES THAT WE DO NOT HAVE <br />AT THIS MOMENT. SHE ASKED MR. PUTNAM IF THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. <br />MR. PUTNAM AGREED THAT IS WHAT HE SAID, BUT IT CAN BE TAKEN <br />TWO WAYS. WHAT HE MEANT IS THAT SINCE THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE IMPACT <br />FEES, ETC., THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE COSTS NECESSITATED BY <br />.THE INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT. HE"NOTED THAT YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION <br />TO PROVIDE THEM AT A DEVELOPER S REQUEST, BUT WHEN THEY ARE PUT IN, <br />THE TAXPAYERS WILL PROBABLY PAY FOR IT AND NOT THE DEVELOPER. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED MRe PUTNAM IF HE WERE AWARE THAT <br />`THE SPECIFIC PARCEL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WOULD REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT <br />OF REGIONAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THAT EVERYTHING HE ADDRESSED IN HIS <br />REPORT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER DRI. <br />MR. PUTNAM AGREED THAT THE LIST OF THINGS THAT GOES INTO A <br />DRI is INCREDIBLE. HE STATED THIS IS A PROJECT THAT IS IN AN <br />ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA, AND IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A <br />TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF AGENCIES. IT IS EXPENSIVE AND FRUSTRATING BECAUSE <br />22 <br />s r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.