Laserfiche WebLink
f100M <br />Planner DeBlois had some question on the track issue in <br />regard to how much it is vested because of use. He assumed we <br />could apply the noise ordinance but,was not sure about the use <br />issue. <br />Attorney Vitunac noted that the vested rights issue is <br />something the track can raise in a proper procedure. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if they ever got any permits, <br />and Director Keating pointed out that they did not need permits <br />at the time. We have the future covered, but the past is the <br />problem. He advised that we have been working with Code Enforce- <br />ment on this, and we are looking at the land clearing and tree <br />protection violations aspect also. <br />Mrs. Wilson stressed that the fact is that it is a general <br />nuisance. It is a total residential area, and this is not a <br />compatible use; also, they do have deed restrictions. <br />Director Keating commented that we do define nuisance <br />specifically, but it is not the same as in civil law. <br />Board members suggested Mrs. Wilson to get with our Code <br />Enforcement people on this. <br />Mrs. Wilson referred the Board to Sebastian's nuisance <br />ordinance which she felt is a pretty adequate one. <br />It was determined that no one else wished to be heard on <br />Chapter 973. <br />Chapter 974, Noise & Vibration Control <br />* New ordinance based on community input <br />* Highlights: <br />- Specific noise/vib. prohibitions <br />- Geared toward nighttime restrictions <br />- Decibel level standards <br />- Exemptions <br />- Opportunity for admin. approval <br />No public comment. <br />50 <br />