Agenda - 08-18-2009 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/1/09 119 120 Brian Crawford: They can put the whole master plan in and ready to be built but at that point, our job, as the County, is done. It 121 is up to them to start selling. It is possible; they may not sell it for 10 or 15 years and there is really nothing we can do about it. 122 123 Michael Harvey: That is one of the requirements for having the six months, not only reporting requirements but also saying you 124 only get the extension necessary to meet your minimum permitting needs. 125 126 Earl McKee: I can understand, on a basic level, why you would want a project to move forward, i.e. being approved under 127 regulations that no longer exists, I understand that. Is there any other driving force on this? 128 129 Michael Harvey: As the board knows, the County makes certain assumptions regarding the develop-ability of areas of the 130 County and within the individual economic development districts specifically. If you start looking at the available of infrastructure, 131 i.e. water sewer, you don't want one project that could eat up x amount of capacity. One of the reasons you want a 132 commencement requirement is to ensure that other projects are not held up because of requirements for improvements. 133 134 Earl McKee: At the public hearing, I heard a lot, on this master plan development, some of the Board of County Commissioners 135 were mentioning long range, in year, five, and seven or nine years, did I hear something that did not exist? 136 137 Michael Harvey: The ordinance amendment, as originally proposed, was apparently confusing and the Board did not understand 138 the number of extensions that would be allowed for given projects. The goal is to grant the minimum time necessary for this 139 permit. The goal is not to allow a project to sit dormant for 10 or 20 years because of multiple approvals. The ordnance was 140 unclear last time. We have attempted to clarify that. 141 142 Earl McKee: It's written here under master plan that with all the possible extensions, are we talking five years? 143 144 Michael Harvey: Yes. 145 146 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I can understand the Board of County Commissioner's point of view. I wonder what a developer would 147 say. 148 149 Earl McKee: From a development aspect, you don't want extensions. If it sits too long, the marketability drops. You do not want 150 these extensions. It helps if you run into a problem with DOT or in this case, crossing the wetlands. 151 152 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: If the developer did not want one or need one, this would be helpful. 153 154 Mark Marcoplos: It makes total sense, the flexibility is great, and I think it is a no brainer. The Board of County Commissioners 155 heard it at the public hearing and they got it and made a few changes and I think we should send it on with our blessing. 156 157 Judith Wegner: On page 68, under b, the date of approval of the project by the County, do we stamp 'approved' on document or 158 something like that.? 159 160 Michael Harvey: You have a special use permit that has to be recorded that states approved on x date. For Buckhom Village for 161 example, there is a section that says as approved on x day by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. 162 163 Judith Wegner: And that is the case if it staff approved or Board of Adjustment or anybody.? 164 165 Michael Harvey: This would only impact planned developments. 166 167 Judith Wegner: What if someone asked for 18 months but they actually get it in 12, will they still get the 18? 168 169 Michael Harvey: Under a single use, that is correct. 170 171 Judith Wegner: On page 69 e, we put faces on that project to say that we thought it should go on a stage basis to say that the 172 first phase would need to be done by a certain time or it was not going to continue to be approved. That is still possible? 173 174 Michael Harvey: Yes. We don't want to limit the Board's ability. We don't want the process to be utilized by a developer to 175 usurp the .... 176 0