10/23/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE N was forwarded on at the Regional Planning Council level. He noted that in a site plan you approve the.final product, but the Development Order is contingent on about 65 things yet to be done. He wished to know why those items aren't all addressed and' plans approved prior to us issuing the Development Order rather than issuing the Order contingent on all these things happening? Director Keating believed the primary purpose of the D.R.I. is to look at and mitigate any possible impacts, and it makes sure the conceptual plan doesn't have adverse impacts of a regional nature. In our local site plan review, we do tie things down really closely, but we still make release of the site plan contingent on obtaining all the other agency permits required; we cannot demand everything up front. Assistant County Attorney Barkett pointed out that this also is the way the Statute is written. We have certain time con- straints to act on the document which is forwarded to us by the Regional Planning Council. Chairman Lyons felt there is another thing which makes this a little different in his mind - the environmental constraints which have not been met face to face by the developer and are still being danced around, and they will have a major impact on what the site plan is. He wondered whether we really have a viable project. Director Keating commented that even though there are certain unknowns about the specific design, what has been delineated is a recommended set of parameters, and what the Board is really approving is a concept that is pretty structured. The developer must abide by certain limits within which to do his design. Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern that when you go through the whole process, you have many activities that have to occur between now and when this final product is actually delivered to the market. He asked if we have a mechanism that shows the critical path of these items because we are talking 48 M M