Laserfiche WebLink
alternative would be to rescind the Resolution and not have a <br />moratorium, and then just review cases relative to trips <br />available and require the developers to lower their density <br />accordingly. That would exempt us from the one unit per acre <br />requirement. <br />Commissioner Scurlock did not believe the Committee can <br />start the action again for a year, but he felt a moratorium would <br />be more consistent than having to consider each case that arose. <br />-acre. <br />Further discussion ensued re a moratorium at three units per <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Scurlock, to adopt Resolution 85-3 <br />amending Resolution 84-101, as discussed, by proceed- <br />ing to institute a moratorium at 3 dwelling units <br />per acre and instructing staff not to review any <br />projects above that level until we receive our traffic <br />consultant's analysis and recommendation. <br />Nancy Offutt wished to know if hotel and motel development <br />would be considered residential as in the original Hutchinson <br />Island Study, and Attorney Brandenburg confirmed they still would <br />be considered a residential traffic generator under our <br />Resolution and proposed ordinance. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt it would be at more than a <br />residential level, however, i.e., at around 10 trips a day. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. <br />It was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously instructed <br />staff to advertise and send out notices as required <br />to institute a moratorium as described above. <br />C 79 <br />JAN 2 1985 BOOK 59 <br />