COM 1025.001 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

61- I j 1 I ' t`: I I 1I;t I i i ~i 3Ei I ~ I I Fir there is uo certainty fur the c• ntdominium purchaser that the eeess ry t: I rt j development permits and approvAt mill be granted by Utz county. SCCCin , it ha1 the effect I ar of shiftirig~the burden of development impa::4c to the surrounding i;omniu ity an the 1.• County, since development and ircrpr"n anent of these apattinents tiiay tics r without pit~r ` I i° county revizty as to tut suitability of ttc sit-, for such development, in to s of i impact I on truffic,'drainage, ind othzr imp cir t s vies. Third, it undermines the inicnE and a.; function of county, zoning to cont-ol nail c; and separate conflicting )and uses. This ft. ~ ' j ~ I I issue is oflp<rticular cor;cerri it) ar a: zoned for agricultural use, as this practice has allowed lz:, for residential development of agricultural lands at dznsities above that intended 7der Courtly coning to protect and foster wi6cultural activity, I The lack of clarity in thr, sr-- tuic as to jtnisdiction over projects crehted under State law has hindered county effortj to this i>suc. Claarly, State law ~ nd effprts to provide flexibility and affordability in Uta development process should 'ncit fnutr;uC the legitimate, fuuctioni of the couotics to .,-)f-,,guard dtz public health, safe~y,,arid wr.ifare of ! r I' I individual homeowners and the. This bill would provide the a ladficluion a. I I heeded tti avoid such cl,urfliet br.rv . , Statc and county laws and regulations. i 1 1'I 1111o OifiQe recornrncnds the bill bc.:,pp. Lx'Cd With autendmentslth;tt might further clarify th int]nt of CL,,, hill. Tri a m°, admcnts ale attached to our testinia Y. 'Mark you fug tl;e oppnrit.n;ity to provide nicest comment's. LY)Y I ~ I I I 1 r s; i i ,