Laserfiche WebLink
• N <br />Attorney Collins referred to the substantial deviation <br />determination chart. If the number of units are increased by So, <br />he felt it would be a substantial deviation since this looks to be <br />about 200. He asked why adding 653 units was not a substantial <br />deviation. <br />Director Boling explained that the Florida Statute governing substantial deviations has <br />several sections and one section speaks to increases in the number of units, which is the <br />section Deputy County Attorney Collins is referring to in the minutes. Further on in the <br />Statute, there is a section that is quite on point where an applicant proposes a swapping out <br />of the uses, decreasing a certain use and increasing another, and that can be considered to <br />be not a substantial deviation if the applicant provides evidence that the swap out does not <br />increase the intensity of the project. That is what the applicant has done in this instance by <br />submitting the traffic analysis. It is called a "rebuttable presumption" in the Statute. <br />In response to Commissioner Macht's inquiry, Director Boling advised that the traffic <br />consultant looked at the traffic impacts both internal and external to the development. <br />There were no further questions of staff. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in <br />this matter. <br />Steve Moler, of Masteller and Moler, advised that he, Peter Henn, and Barbara Hall, <br />were present on behalf of the applicant. Chris Squires of Kimley-Horn, traffic consultant, <br />was also present. They were prepared to answer any questions the Board might have about <br />the project. He expressed appreciation for working with staff on the process and looked <br />forward to receiving approval. <br />It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the <br />public hearing. <br />21 <br />January 6, 1998 <br />BOOK 104 PAGE 25 <br />