8/24/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SINCE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED A MOTION TO SETTLE THE MATTER. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT, IN LIEU OF THE OWNER MAKING CONSTRUCTION ADDITIONS TO THE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, THE CASH CONTRIBUTION OF $40,000 TO BE USED SPECIFICALLY FOR CIVIL DEFENSE PURPOSES, PAYABLE UPON 50% COMPLETION OF THE VILLAGE GREEN WEST AND SOUTH DEVELOPMENTS; THE FUNDS TO BE HELD IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT. FURTHER DISCUSSION ENSUED. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. THE BOARD NEXT DISCUSSED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT THE SIGNALIZATION IMPACT SHOULD BE ON THE SHOULDERS OF VILLAGE GREEN. AFTER A VERY LENGTHY DISCUSSION, THE BOARD FELT THAT IF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DETERMINED THAT A SIGNAL WAS NOT NECESSARY AT THE PROJECT I S MAIN ENTRANCE, THE COUNTY COULD PETITION FOR A SIGNAL AT RANCH ROAD AND STATE ROAD 60; AND THE APPLICANT WOULD CONTRIBUTE AN AMOUNT TOWARD THE INSTALLATION COST THAT IT WOULD HAD PAID IF A SIGNAL HAD BEEN INSTALLED AT THE PROJECT ENTRANCE; AND IF A PERMIT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED FOR A SIGNAL, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE NO FURTHER OBLIGATION. ATTORNEY HOULIHAN POINTED OUT THAT MONITORING PROCEDURES FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT ORDER SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AND AGREED UPON BY BOTH PARTIES. HE FELT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COULD HANDLE THIS PROCEDURE. VARIOUS WORD CHANGES WERE REVIEWED IN THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-59, INCORPORATING THE MATTERS JUST DISCUSSED, FOR MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RENDERING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING VILLAGE GREEN WEST AND VILLAGE GREEN SOUTH APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT; AND CONSTITUTING IT AS A DEVELOPMENT ORDER. AUG 24 1981 3 e00 47 PAGE -JOG