Laserfiche WebLink
M <br />this amendment. The Professional Services and Advisory Committee <br />voted 4-1 against it, and staff recommends that this section be <br />deleted and not be allowed. <br />J. Anthony, 628 High Street, Sebastian, responded that beef is <br />not a natural resource. He stated that his seafood sales business <br />is following in the tradition of his grandparents and great <br />grandparents. He could understand the Board's concern about having <br />a bunch of trucks along the highways, but he felt that the way <br />staff has written this amendment eliminated that possibility. The <br />fact that it is a satellite operation would control it. <br />Commissioner Bird felt the fact that it must be a satellite of <br />an approved retail outlet was a good requirement. <br />Vice Chairman Bowman agreed. <br />6. Concurrency - 90 -Day Grace Period - Section 6 <br />Planning Director Stan Boling explained that this amendment <br />would set up two avenues for developers to follow. The first is a <br />90 -day grace period which would allow a site plan applicant to <br />actually reserve traffic and utilities capacity without having to <br />pay the impact until the end of the 90 -day period. Later in the <br />meeting County Attorney Charles Vitunac clarified that at the end <br />of the 90 -day period when the applicant pays the impact fee, it <br />would be retroactive for that 90 -day period. <br />Commissioner Bird asked if that is necessary, and Attorney <br />Vitunac responded that it is the law. <br />Director Boling explained that the second avenue would be to <br />allow the developer to delay getting a concurrency certificate <br />until the time of building permit issuance. A site plan or <br />subdivision approval would be conditioned upon concurrency <br />certificates being obtained before each and every building permit <br />in that project. That capacity could be used up by the time they <br />come to get that permit. The developer would have to acknowledge <br />to the County that they are not getting the concurrency certificate <br />now and they do not have capacity now and they are taking the risk. <br />This would actually relieve the developer of the responsibility of <br />having to lock up concurrency or reserve capacity, and that is for <br />everything, including traffic impact. He would pass that <br />responsibility on to the ultimate consumer, the ultimate lot owner. <br />It is allowing the risk to be passed down further along in the <br />process and the developer would not have to pay the costs up front. <br />Commissioner Scurlock foresaw problems when this risk is <br />passed along. The ultimate consumer is going to come before this <br />Board and complain because there is no capacity, and there will be <br />traffic jams. <br />23 <br />