My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/26/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
9/26/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:46 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 9:48:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/26/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
M M <br />Attorney Collins agreed that option is and should be there. <br />However, when this concept was talked about at the February 13th <br />meeting, we didn't have the time to work out the capital <br />improvement implications, and it didn't get transmitted. We were <br />required by the DCA to transmit the plan within 5 days after the <br />Board's adoption of the Comp Plan, and in the course of <br />negotiating with them during the summer and getting the land <br />development regulations in place, that ball was dropped a little <br />bit. Attorney Bruce Barkett is representing clients who are <br />intervening on our behalf and we have discussed with him the <br />possibility that the remedial amendments that we are talking <br />about now may adversely affect his clients. He was going to _ <br />discuss resolving his intervention position with them in terms of <br />a mixed use concept around those two interchange nodes. In some <br />of their technical memos, the DCA has said that a mixed use <br />concept in certain areas combining industrial, residential and <br />commercial in close proximity is something they can address. <br />Attorney Collins felt that in order to allow a present intervener <br />to put forward that type of an argument to avoid having to <br />intervene again against any remedial actions, we should allow <br />this proposal to be sent up to the State. He didn't think we <br />could make it a part of our settlement agreement, however, <br />because the DCA has said that if we change a letter of the <br />negotiated compliance agreement, all bets are off. But, when we <br />hold our transmittal hearing within 60 days; we do have the <br />possibility for the interveners and the parties that are involved <br />to submit proposals for DCA consideration. Whether they will <br />accept them or not, we will have to see. <br />Chairman Eggert emphasized that she and staff had talked <br />endlessly about the nodal concept when they were in Tallahassee. <br />Director Keating explained that 6 weeks after the Board gave <br />staff direction to consider nodal concepts, we received word that <br />the DCA had found our Comp Plan in non-compliance, and one of the <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.