My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/22/1986 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
1/22/1986 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:00 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:27:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/22/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
JAN 2 21996 63 P�i;��_ V4 <br />BOOK r <br />the plan on a periodic basis to see if some modification is <br />indicated. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that representatives of the <br />Department of Transportation were at this morning's Commission <br />meeting. The DOT is not adding any projects to their list as <br />they are still working on projects that were underfunded in the <br />past; so it looks as if we will have to fund some of the projects <br />ourselves that the DOT has done in the past. Apparently it will <br />be five years before we see any construction on the <br />Merrill -Barber Bridge, unless we go to a local option to do these <br />.improvements. If we do not, it is possible that development <br />might have to cease -both on the mainland and the barrier island. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any other changes <br />incorporated in the current draft of the proposed ordinance, and <br />Director Davis advised that some redundancy was taken out but the <br />the ordinance is the same other than the two major changes <br />discussed. <br />Commissioner Bird wondered what happens when a person who <br />has resided in the county for several years sells his home and <br />moves to another district. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed that person would recoup his <br />impact fee expense in the sale of his residence. <br />Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if <br />anyone wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Robert McKnight, 602 21st Street, Vero Beach, explained that <br />his company was before this Board about three months ago with the <br />first PRD application for Sixty Oaks, a small residential <br />development of 60 units. While his company supports the <br />imposition of impact fees, they are concerned about how their <br />specific project would be treated under this program. Their <br />project is unique in that it is the first zero lot line <br />development in the county, and he believed that under the <br />multiple -family land use classification, they would fall under <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.