2/2/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

conditions. He went on to explain that his clients do realize the problem and want a good solution found, but feel that the deceleration lane is not the answer. He also stated his resentment of his representative coming into the meeting of January -19, 1983 and finding out new requirements or conditions had been added to staff recommendation of preliminary plat approval, and added that he also resented the implication that his firm did not care about Vero Beach but wanted to move full speed ahead regardless. Commissioner Fletcher expressed his resentment toward the developer in that the reason the Commission did not take action at the January 19, 1983 meeting was to afford the developer the opportunity to make an effective change or hold discussion with us on ways to solve the problem,, and that he even felt more resentment in that -the developer had gone ahead with paving and grading after the January 19th meeting without coming back to us. Discussion continued at length on the requirement for a single lane entry, the impact on traffic flow, etc. Michael Orr, County Traffic Engineer, stated that the basic purpose of the deceleration taper is to get the turning traffic out of the main flow on U.S. #1; there is no storage because the vehicles are not required to stop. He agreed that a traffic signal may be required in the future, but that this should be looked at when all the development is in so we could connect all the sites and maximize the use of a single light. Commissioner Fletcher asked Attorney Brandenburg if we are in our legal right to impose these requirements and conditions at this time, and was assured that the Commission does have the right, although any applicant has the ability to have a matter reviewed in court. r 37 I FEi 1983 c52 %E 7-45