6/4/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r JUS 4 1986 BOOK 64 mu 6433 7 plan ordinance was approved and being more specific and adding some new concepts to it, particularly the concept of the cumulative impact. Commissioner Lyons felt one of the problems is that only the* larger developer gets hit, and lots of small projects can add up to more impact than one big one. Planner Boling clarified that this sets standards for large scale projects and also looks at the cumulative effects of several projects on a road, and the difference between the two is basically that the smaller project threshold is higher than the large project threshold; that gives the ability to look at the existing situations. If you have several small projects come in, then there can be a build up of escrowing for that paving and there can be some monies in place to get it started. Chairman Scurlock speculated about a concept in regard to setting standards for exceeding road capacity and then saying that once we reach certain levels, that would immediately trigger a mandatory assessment by the county. Planner Boling believed that is something that could work. He noted this is not a new amendment sort of thing; there is already a place reserved for it in the site plan ordinance and it fits in with the development process which is in place. Commissioner Lyons discussed the trip generation rates, which he believed are different than those used by the Regional Planning Council. He noted that all counties involved in the Hutchinson Island Management Plan got together and agreed how traffic should be counted; so, he does not understand why we now should enact an ordinance that does it differently. Director Keating pointed out that during the Hutchinson Island Plan study, controversy arose as to whether the trip generation rates used by Martin and St. Lucie Counties were applicable for our county, and our consultant as part of the traffic impact fee study went out and actually did surveys. From 49