My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/12/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
11/12/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:46:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/12/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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
V k *4 1991 <br />Director Keating advised that particular node amendment is <br />coming to the Board next week for final adoption. <br />Chairman Bird found it difficult sometimes to go through <br />these various changes and determine exactly what the financial <br />impact could be on property owners of potential future <br />development on various property, and he really felt that we have <br />an excellent, very tough Comp Plan and a tough group of LDRs to <br />put teeth in the Comp Plan and ordinances to back that up. He <br />hoped, especially in these economic times, that staff and the <br />Board will continue to consider the financial impact of further <br />changes in the ordinances and LDRs and the Comp Plan that affects <br />the potential development of property in the County. <br />Director Keating felt everyone of these amendments provides <br />a little more flexibility rather than imposing additional <br />regulation. <br />On the other hand, Commissioner Scurlock noted that good <br />planning is good planning, and just because we get into tough <br />economic times is no reason to change our planning; it should <br />have been cost effective and proper in the first place. If we <br />were to liberalize our planning every time we get into a tough <br />economic climate, we would be stuck with -it when good times <br />return. <br />Chairman Bird stated that it wasn't his intent that we <br />should lower our standards. He just meant that during bad times <br />or good, we need to look at our changes and see if they are <br />reasonable from a financial, economic view. <br />In answer to Commissioner Bowman's question regarding the <br />difference between package plants and centralized water and sewer <br />systems, Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that the intent <br />was that centralized water and sewer originally meant connection <br />to the public system. A centralized system is one that connects <br />into a public or private system that serves more than several <br />customers. <br />Commissioner Scurlock further explained that a package <br />system actually can be a initial system at the front end of a <br />project, but when we talk about package systems, we usually are <br />referring to a pre -fab type of facility. <br />Commissioner Bowman felt the cluster provision is saying <br />that if you cluster, you can have a sanitary sewer system, which <br />to her is just another package plant. <br />Director Pinto explained that it could end up being part of <br />the County's regional system. River's Edge water treatment plant <br />could be considered a package plant, but that development is on a <br />centralized system. <br />22 <br />M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.