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
J U L 131991 BOOK 46 PACE ,. <br />MR. BAKER THEN QUESTIONED WHY CERTAIN IMPACT INFORMATION <br />HAS TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE DEVELOPER WHEN WE HAVE NATIONAL STANDARDS <br />BY WHICH TO DETERMINE THESE IMPACTS AND ALSO REFERRED TO THE REQUIRE- <br />MENT TO LIST HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. <br />MR. REVER COMMENTED THAT A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLY <br />COULD HAVE A UNIQUE PROBLEM WHERE THE NATIONAL STANDARD WOULD NOT BE <br />ADEQUATE. AS TO HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, HE NOTED <br />THAT THESE ACTUALLY ARE KNOWN ENTITIES AND THE STATE HAS CONTROL <br />OVER SUCH SITES. THE COUNTY, HOWEVER, WOULD WISH TO BE AWARE OF <br />THEM. <br />MR. BAKER EMPHASIZED THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A LOT OF REDUN- <br />DANCY IN THE PROPOSED DOCUMENT, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT <br />STREAMLINED. <br />BRUCE KALEITA OF DELTONA CORPORATION NEXT APPEARED AND CON- <br />CURRED THAT THE NUMBER OF AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE <br />BOTH EXCESSIVE AND REDUNDANT'S IT WAS HIS FEELING THAT THEY WERE <br />BEING ASKED TO SECOND GUESS THE COUNTY'S OWN EXPERTS REGARDING <br />IMPACT ON HOSPITALS, FIRE, POLICE, ETC., AND HE SUGGESTED THAT THE <br />DEVELOPERS OBTAIN LETTERS FROM THESE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS SETTING OUT <br />THEIR OPINION, WHICH LETTERS WOULD BECOME AN OFFICIAL PART OF THE <br />RECORD AND THEREBY ELIMINATE SOME EXTRA WORK. MR. KALEITA THEN <br />POINTED OUT THAT THE TIMETABLE FOR PROCESSING THE IMPACT STATEMENT <br />ALLOWS THE COUNTY 45 WORKING DAYS FOR REVIEW - THIS TRANSLATES INTO <br />APPROXIMATELY NINE WEEKS, AND THE ORDINANCE IS NOT SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT <br />HAPPENS AFTER THIS REVIEW IS COMPLETED. HE NOTED THAT THE REGIONAL <br />PLANNING COUNCILS ARE ALLOWED 30 CALENDAR DAYS FOR REVIEW AND <br />"''CITED THE BOARD CONSIDER LIMITING THIS TIME PERIOD. <br />JU ALJ <br />ROBERT SCHUMAKER OF DELTONA CORP. EMPHASIZED THAT THEY FEEL <br />THE ORDINANCE IS STILL TOO BROAD, STILL TOO VAGUE AND STILL LACKING <br />IN THE PROPER CRITERIA NEEDED TO USE IT EFFECTIVELY. ALTHOUGH <br />MR. REVER HAS MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT THEIR INTENTIONS, MR. SCHUMAKER <br />FELT WHEN YOU HAVE AN ORDNANCE WHERE QUESTIONS ARE ASKED REGARDING <br />EACH SECTION, THAT ORDINANCE SHOULD BE WORKED ON FURTHER AND <br />TIGHTENED UP. HE AGREED THAT MANY THINGS IN THE ORDINANCE ARE OF <br />GREAT CONCERN, BUT FELT IF THE BOARD HAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN <br />OR SOME OTHER SPECIFIC CONCERN, IT SHOULD BE HANDLED BY AN ORDINANCE <br />DIRECTED JUST TO THAT CONCERN. HE ASKED THAT THE -BOARD STREAMLINE AND <br />CL" THE PROPOSED ORDINANC� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.