My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/27/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
1/27/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:37 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:54:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/27/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
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
JAN 27 199 ���� 8 muc 692 <br />very clear in the past that the Planning and Zoning Cormnissio <br />not pass anything contingent on action on their n could <br />.�to be t <br />m�-rendation of the attorney that we havepart, and <br />settled b this matter <br />also,it is the reco <br />y the County Commission,due to policy matters, prior to our <br />looking at the site plan. <br />Mr. Brandenburg stated his opinion was they may Postpone <br />this if they desired to; g p <br />in order to et an opinion by the Board of <br />County Commissioners on the other items first; but he di <br />mend to do that, d not recom- <br />mend of the criteria for judging a site plan is all <br />means of ingress and egress, indicating widths and certainly <br />access to the public right-of-way, this <br />through the marina, isn`t settled <br />at this point; and if the :. <br />Y felt it should they could defer it to the <br />County Commissioners. <br />The Chairman stated it was her personal opinion that this <br />matter should be settled before they review the site <br />she had given her views to Florida Land before.e Plan and that <br />her opinion was their a She went on to say <br />application was not complete at this point, with <br />the problem of Jungle Trail and ingress and egress. <br />Mr. Jones said he understood the Board had less latitud <br />for site plan a e <br />pproval, or denial then under, say for example, rezoning, <br />and was told by the attorney that he was correct <br />. from the issue of the drawbridge,was the application <br />felt' aside <br />pplication complete in terms <br />of all information regarding the site plans for other <br />could determine was correct, things that they <br />Mr. Brandenburg said he was there to offer legal advise <br />the Board had information in their <br />packets from the planners and if <br />they felt that packet was not complete, - <br />the c , <br />Y oLld use their discre- <br />tion to hear this tonight if they wanted to, <br />The Chairman stated the final site plan had not bee <br />submitted to them-due to the Planning Department fee n <br />Problems had to be Ling that these <br />resolved. <br />Mr. Parent questioned if the packet the had <br />several weeks ag °whi� Y d received <br />ch stated the different problems needing to be <br />corrected, had been done. <br />Mr. Rever commented some of them had been taken car <br />during a meeting e of <br />Of their company and the County staff, One problem <br />the road solution <br />kept getting bigger and bigger and th <br />County commission should the <br />resolve <br />ey felt <br />- IiiWd let it come back to, <br />-12- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.