My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/5/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
5/5/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:31 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:56:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/05/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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
r � � <br />--is covered under other County ordinances, particularly the utility_ <br />ordinances that provide for the creation of franchises. <br />Deputy County Attorney Will Collins understood that the <br />purpose of policies 5.9 and 6.1 is to address situations like the <br />Coraci property where our regulations require clustering but where <br />individual wells and septic tanks potentially would cause pollution <br />to the St. Sebastian River. Policies 5.9 and 6.1 offers some other <br />non-polluting options such as extending central sewer or having <br />privately -owned, public treatment plants. That is the way it reads <br />now, but he believed we have another policy in there that says if <br />the centralized lines come within a certain distance, either 200 <br />feet or a quarter of a mile, they are required to hook up these <br />plants to the public system. <br />Director Keating stated that it has been staff's understanding <br />that the franchise requirements would adequately cover this. <br />Considerable discussion ensued regarding whether the County <br />has an ability through the franchise to deny a developer's request <br />to construct a package plant. <br />Director Keating suggested adding language that would require <br />new package plants built outside the urban service area to be owned <br />and maintained by the County Utiliies Department, but the Board <br />indicated they had reservations about that. <br />Chairman Eggert asked what the Board's wishes were regarding <br />those policies -- continue with them, throw them out, or reword <br />them. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt they need some significant thought, <br />but Director Keating pointed out that these Comp Plan amendments _ <br />have to be sent to the State within 5 days. He felt the major <br />benefit we have is any type of development outside the urban <br />service area has to be Planned Development. With the Planned <br />Development process the County has a lot of control and the County <br />can impose specific regulations as to ownership of utilities or any <br />other criteria there. Whether it is a mixed use development, an <br />agricultural cluster, or a conservation district cluster, it has to <br />be through Planned Development (PD). Director Keating believed <br />that gives us a lot of control. <br />Commissioner Scurlock still felt that 5.9 and 6.1 do not <br />adequately address the issue. <br />Director Keating advised -that we have several options on this <br />issue. We are looking at the next round of changes to the land <br />development regulations and we can put some language in the LDRs _ <br />that gives the County adequate control. He still felt that we have <br />all the control that is necessary through the Planned Development <br />process. He didn't anticipate there would be that many cases where <br />131 <br />MAY 0 5 1992 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.