My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/20/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
10/20/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:40 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:34:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/20/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
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
0 CT 2 01982 R 51 72 <br />are not sure what the land can do about absorbing waste or <br />run off, etc. <br />Lengthy discussion ensued, and it was pointed out that <br />the developer only has the right to build to that extent if <br />he can meet all the other requirements that are in effect, <br />including DER standards, health standards, etc. <br />Mr. King stressed that development is a step by step <br />process, and the developer wants to know the county will <br />approve the use and general density limit before he gets <br />into engineering costs, etc. <br />Discussion continued at length, and it was noted that <br />after the developer starts his plan, he may learn'he cannot <br />build to a certain density. <br />Attorney Brandenburg commented that some jurisdictions <br />do require a a certification that water and sewer can be <br />provided at the density being requested, and they also can <br />require having a site plan already worked out. This juris- <br />diction, however, has a bifurcated process. He stated that <br />it is really a choice of philosophy and how you structure <br />your zoning -code. <br />Commissioner Fletcher noted that we then apparently do <br />have the option to turn this around and asked how the Board <br />members felt"about this. <br />It was generally indicated that the Board members would <br />be willing to consider it, but that they had many questions <br />as to whether this would put us in a better position or not. <br />Commissioner Lyons felt there could not be a worse time <br />to change our system than when we are in the process of <br />changing from the old Master Plan to the new one, and he <br />recommended that we accomplish that transition first and <br />then take another look at Commissioner Fletcher's proposal <br />rather than going off on another tangent at this time. <br />It was generally felt this should be on a later agenda. <br />78 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.