My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/23/2006 (3)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
05/23/2006 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2022 11:16:50 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:01:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Joint Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/23/2006
Archived Roll/Disk#
3123
Book and Page
130, 794-810
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
310
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
<br />then is going to make a multi-million dollar horizontal construction investment, and he should <br />have the ability to mitigate the risk that concurrency won’t be available. As to the last point <br />where he has to vest, they are looking at final plat approval, because at that time the lots will be <br />created. If those lots are vested forever they are not going to have the possibility of a <br />subsequent buyer getting those lots and not having concurrency. These timeframes allow the <br />developer to mitigate risk at the Land Development Permit complete application time, and <br />eliminate the risk for subsequent buyers by having final vesting at final plat. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued and P&Z members posed several questions to Director Keating <br />regarding the allocation of concurrency when he had more than one applicant at the same time. <br />Director Keating responded that he used a first come first serve basis. I <br /> <br />Joseph Paladin <br />, President of the Growth Awareness Committee (a private sector <br />group) said his theory was the first to vest to be the earliest dated LDP applicant, There would <br />be no guess work and it would be fair. <br /> <br />Mr. Paladin <br />continued at length regarding the feasibility of Mr. Swift’s proposal to <br />vest in phases. He stated the pending ordinance was a reaction to problems that were <br />happening at that time. The Board feared that the local developers would be squeezed out by <br />larger developers who could afford to write a check for the impact fees. He agreed that the best <br />time to vest was at LDP. He felt there was confusion and commented that Mr. Christopher <br />Mr. Paladin <br />distinguished two problems, counting and concurrency. advised the Board to get <br />all the facts, and find out what steps other counties took to get to their end result to decide what <br />will work for IRC. He was not against writing a new ordinance that would let people vest; and <br />he was not against making vesting mandatory at final plat. He was against everyone trying to <br />make a decision when everyone does not have the facts, and when only a few people know all <br />the facts. <br /> <br />MAY 23, 2006 <br />12 <br />JOINT WORKSHOP P&Z/BCC <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.