Laserfiche WebLink
<br />reservation of the trips onto the network, and there was no concurrency certificate in <br />place. It was his opinion that the mere initial approval of the application of a DRI under <br />the facts and circumstances does not provide the applicant with a blanket exemption. <br />Also, he advised the Board has the discretion to determine that Waterway Village is not <br />vested by virtue of their approval of the DRI. <br /> <br />E. Lee Worsham <br />, Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., <br />representing DiVosta, the developer of Waterway Village, read Chapter 952.07(5)(e) of <br />the Comprehensive Plan explaining the methodology used by DiVosta. He argued that <br />his client complies with the Comprehensive Plan and that the developer is not in breach <br />of their contract. He explained how DiVosta chose a DRI to set the ultimate cost of the <br />work and other support facilities for that project. He did not think it was a question of <br />vesting or not vesting, but a question of on-going compliance with concurrency pursuant <br />to the County ordinances. <br /> <br />Attorney Shubin <br /> said nothing has changed his mind and asked the question, <br />“Was the application at the time concurrent or not?” To him, the argument appeared to <br />be to comply with Chapter 910, or Chapter 952, which is the alternate methodology <br />system. <br /> <br />Director Bob Keating reviewed portions of Chapter 952 that states an <br />alternative methodology can be used to determine the impacts. <br /> <br />Assistant County Public Works Director Chris Mora explained that the reason <br />that Section of Chapter 952 is in the Comprehensive Plan was because they have different <br />levels of service, and it was used only as how to prepare the traffic study. He made it <br />clear that they have not used it to determine capacity or concurrency. <br /> <br />December 5, 2006 <br />29 <br /> <br />