My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/11/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
9/11/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:46 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 9:43:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/11/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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
SEP 11 1990 <br />Booa< <br />PA O,Jf <br />up the problems <br />associated with having 5,000 sq, ft. <br />as a <br />threshhold,.and staff said they thought this threshhold was being <br />used as a growth management tool. The Board had seemed to be <br />1 <br />receptive to the idea of having a flow. -type threshhold, and he <br />contended that the square footage threshhold restricts small <br />commercial developments. If the flow criteria was used, then <br />those uses that are 10,000 sq, ft., but only have a sink and a <br />toilet will not be penalized. <br />Director Keating pointed out that the 5,000 sq, ft., is the <br />standard that is in the Comp Plan right now; so, we don't really <br />have the discretion to go to flow. He stressed that this is not <br />designed to restrict growth; it is to make sure that utilities <br />are extended to the areas where they are really needed. <br />Mr. Smith did not see why the guy with 10,000 sq. ft. but <br />just one bathroom should be the one to foot the bill to extend <br />this infrastructure. <br />Chairman Eggert pointed out that there is a cumulative <br />effect to be considered. <br />Attorney Collins addressed the question of whether we could <br />change from a square footage to a gallonage flow. He noted that <br />the Growth Management Act says the Comp Plan shall be broadly <br />construed to accomplish its purposes; so, the question is what <br />was the intent of the 5,000 sq. ft. threshhold. If it was <br />related to some kind of health hazard from the size of the septic <br />tank, then we could make the change, but Director Keating has <br />said the square footage was not in there as a health measure but <br />as a growth control measure. If the intent was to utilize the <br />5,000 sq. ft. as a threshhold on growth management utilities <br />extension, then it would require a Plan amendment. <br />Argument continued at length with Director Keating noting <br />that 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface is a major site plan <br />threshhold. <br />Health Director Galanis advised that they do use flow <br />figures in state codes, and he would suggest possibly a <br />34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.