My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/13/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
7/13/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:18 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:14:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/13/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
DEVELOPER TO MAKE SOME SUBSTANTIATING TYPE STATEMENT. <br />MR.,ROBINSON FELT THIS IS ALREADY DONE AND THAT IT WOULD <br />BE A DUPLICATION. <br />DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO PREPARING THE IMPACT <br />EVALUATION DOCUMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR <br />SITE PLAN APPROVAL. MR. REVER STATED THAT THE TWO DOCUMENTS COULD <br />OVERLAP AND THE DEVELOPER COULD SUBMIT FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL WHILE <br />THE IMPACT EVALUATION DOCUMENT WAS BEING PREPARED. <br />MR. ROBINSON POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FLOW <br />CHART IDENTIFYING THE PROCESSING SEQUENCE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THIS <br />ORDINANCE. <br />COMMISSIONER BIRD QUESTIONED THE WORDING REQUIRING DESCRIP- <br />TION OF THE WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION ON THE SUBJECT AND "ADJACENT" <br />PROPERTY. HE WISHED TO HAVE A CLEARER DEFINITION OF WHAT WOULD <br />BE CONSIDERED ADJACENT. <br />IT WAS AGREED THAT "ABUTTING" WOULD BE BETTER WORDING <br />THAN "ADJACENT". <br />MR. ROBINSON FELT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS CREATED MAINLY <br />BECAUSE OF DEVELOPERS TRYING TO GET THEIR PROJECTS IN JUST BELOW <br />THE D.R.I. THRESHOLD OF 750 UNITS, AND HE FELT THAT ALL THE COMMISSION <br />IS DOING WITH THE NEW 25O UNIT REQUIREMENT FOR IMPACT EVALUATION IS <br />LOWERING THE MORAL HAZARD THRESHOLD. HE NOTED THAT A FEDERAL STUDY <br />HAS DETERMINED THAT STANDARDS FOR SITE PLANS HAVE INCREASED GREATLY, <br />IN SOME CASES BEYOND WHAT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH <br />AND WELFARE, AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS <br />WHICH EXCEED SUCH STANDARDS SHOULD BE REDUCED. MR, ROBINSON BELIEVED <br />THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE MAY JUST ADD TO THE COST OF HOUSING AND NOT <br />SUPPLY THE COUNTY WITH THAT MUCH USEFUL INFORMATION. HE POINTED OUT <br />THAT WHEN YOU MAKE DEVELOPMENT MORE EXPENSIVE, THE PUBLIC TURNS TO <br />UNDEVELOPED LOTS ON DIRT STREETS AND THEN ENDS UP BY GOING TO THE <br />COUNTY FOR MORE SERVICES. <br />MARK BAKER CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING TREASURE COAST <br />BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND STATED THAT ALTHOUGH A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION <br />IS WORTHWHILE, THEY FEEL THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DUPLICATION. <br />MR. REVER STATED THAT IF THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PRESENTED <br />TO SATISFY SITE PLAN PROCEDURES, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SUPPLIED <br />AGAIN. MR. BAKER WISHED TO KNOW WHERE THIS IS SPECIFIED IN THE pp <br />O 11 RDINANCE, AND MR. REVER FELT THAT IT IS UNDERSTOODi.Oi PACE. 08 <br />JUL 1 i lib i 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.