My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/1/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
8/1/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:25 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 4:32:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/01/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
L, <br />total build -out of Vista Properties, and Mr. Lyon is <br />requesting 15,000, which he felt seems a little close. <br />Mr. Pinto explained that the engineering figures are <br />based on the maximum build -out of Vista Properties, assuming <br />they built on every part they could build on, and the 15,000 <br />requested by Mr. Lyon is based on maximum flow. <br />Chairman Scurlock inquired if there is anything that <br />indemnifies the county in the event we do exceed capacity, <br />and Mr. Pinto informed the Board that we are asking that a <br />bond be posted that if we did reach capacity because of <br />prior commitment, then the applicant would have to bear the <br />total cost of whatever modifications are needed to <br />accommodate his flow. <br />The Board continued to go over all facets of the <br />situation - possible increase of plant capacity, impact on <br />the residents from connection of the Lyon's property as <br />opposed to the impact of his building another plant in this <br />same area, making maximum use of existing capacity, etc. It <br />was generally agreed that from a business point of view it <br />makes sense to utilize all capacity and also noted that the <br />Board has been consistent in trying to discourage further <br />package treatment plants. <br />Chairman Scurlock discussed a possible Motion and felt <br />basically what we are doing is identifying that there is <br />excess capacity and that it has been documented that we are <br />going to render service to the subject property based on (1) <br />uniqueness, (2) the proximity, (3) engineering feasibility, <br />(4) the applicant being responsible for all necessary <br />improvements and in some way indemnifying us, and (5) <br />timeliness of the application and site plan and a building <br />permit being pulled. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to authorize <br />44 <br />BOOK FAPUE � � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.