7/1/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ilm THE DEVELOPER EXACTLY WHAT HE HAS TO DO AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO ANALYZE IT, ETC. HE FELT THERE WERE DUPLICATIONS AS FAR AS SITE PLANS WERE INVOLVED AND WONDERED IF WE ARE GETTING TOO FAR AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL INTENT. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED THE STRUCTURE OF THE DRI AND POINTED OUT THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS RE- QUESTED TO TRY TO MEET SOME SHORTCOMINGS IN THE EXISTING SITE PLAN ORDINANCE. HE CONTINUED THAT ON PAGE 12 OF THIS DOCUMENT, IT IS STATED THAT A COPY OF THE IMPACT EVALUATION WILL BECOME A PART OF THE SITE PLAN. THIS INFORMATION WILL BE STORED WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION; THE ASSESSMENT IS THAT OF THE DEVELOPER; AND WE MUST EVALUATE WHAT THEIR DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO DO TO OUR COUNTY, HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE IS A PROVISION TO.GET THE COMMENTS BACK TO THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO ANY DECISIONS BEING MADE, COMMISSIONER BIRD REFERRED TO ITEM H ON PAGE 5 WHICH CALLS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL DATA DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE PLANNING & ZONING '' OFFICIAL. MR. REVER COMMENTED THAT THEY WOULD BE PROVIDING FOR A MANDA- TORY PRE -APPLICATION MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER, AND AT THAT TIME, WE WOULD SETTLE WITH THE APPLICANT AS TO WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF HIM. HE AGREED WE SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THIS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT THE REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF INSTEAD OF DECIDED AT THE PRE -APPLICATION MEETING. HE NOTED THIS AGENCY IS A GUARDIAN OF THE LAND AND THE RESOURCES THEREOF, AND THERE IS CRITERIA THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED TO GUARD THESE RESOURCES, CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD COME IN AND BROADLY REVIEW WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO SEE WHAT HE WILL NEED; THIS PRE -PLANNING IS MEANT TO BE A TIME AND MONEY SAVER TO THE DEVELOPER. LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR DEVELOPERS TO KNOW WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THEM; 9 JUL 1 1981 BOOK 46 PAGE "141