Laserfiche WebLink
important that neither the County nor the developer be penalized. <br />Potential development in Indian River County may generate 1,500 <br />cars per day when after 1 .year the road system will still only <br />handle 700. <br />Director Keating felt that future development was one reason <br />for the action; however, normally facilities should be in place <br />prior to approval of a project. He believed that the State is now <br />making allowances for unavoidable delays which occur. <br />Commissioner Adams stated that it generally takes more than 1 <br />year just to plan these capital improvement projects and believed <br />the 1 year period creates a real potential for log jams. <br />Commissioner Tippin was concerned about flexibility and felt <br />that a 2 year period might give more leeway without DCA getting <br />involved. <br />Commissioner Eggert agreed but felt that 3 years would be too <br />much. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. <br />George Moody of 4990 65th Street questioned the change and <br />wondered why, if you do not have the facilities, you would not just <br />refuse to build the projects. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this <br />matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert felt that 2 years might <br />be too much leeway and preferred 1 year. <br />Commissioner Tippin suggested a compromise of "up to 2 years". <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted <br />Resolution 95-145 approving the transmittal of a <br />proposed amendment to the Indian River County <br />Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida <br />Department of Community Affairs for their review; <br />with an amendment to the level of concurrency being <br />changed to "up to 2 years". <br />NOVEMBER 21, 1995 37 BOOK 96 P,,t,F 640 <br />