My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/21/1983
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1983
>
12/21/1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:03 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 3:52:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/21/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
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
The restricted availability of_ wastewater -treatment precluded <br />the issuance of a zoning permit to the Moorings Development <br />Company within the alloted time period. <br />Thd Cotton property is not faced with this same problem, in <br />that, as of December 8, 1983)the existing plant has the capaci- <br />ty to serve 64 residential units, including the 12 units <br />proposed for lot 125. <br />This request for an additional extension is based in part on <br />financial constraints. However, in the past, it has been the <br />County's position that 2 years is adequate time to allow for <br />finalization of financial arrangements._ <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Staff recommends denial of the request to grant an additional <br />one year extension of site -plan approval to Cotton Properties, <br />Inc. for the development of lot 125, The Moorings. <br />Planning & Development Director Robert Keating <br />explained staff's position of not recommending an extension, <br />noting that County policy in the past has been not to grant <br />an additional extension. There has been one exception to <br />that rule. This was also for property in the Moorings, and <br />a second extension was given for three projects, and the <br />second extension of 18 months was allowed for three <br />projects, specifically because there was not sufficient <br />capacity available in the sewage treatment plant. This case <br />is different because there is sufficient capacity in the <br />Hutchinson Utilities plant for the 12 units. The applicant <br />contends that he needs a second extension because of the <br />financial aspects that are involved. Staff's feeling is <br />that we should not establish a precedent since the intent of <br />the expiration policy is to insure that developments that <br />have been approved under one set of regulations do not go on <br />forever, because regulations change and new developments are <br />subject to the new standards and regulations. In in this <br />particular case, the Comprehensive Land Plan has <br />significantly changed the densities in that area from 12 <br />units per acre, for which this site plan is approved, down <br />to the existing three units per acre. <br />Vice Chairman Scurlock noted that.there is not <br />sufficient capacity in the wastewater treatment plant, nor <br />38 <br />DEC 21 1983 55 rAcE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.