My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PZ 10/09/2013 Minutes
Laserfiche
>
City Clerk's Public Records
>
Minutes
>
Advisory Board Minutes
>
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
>
P & Z Minutes Archives
>
2013 P & Z Minutes
>
PZ 10/09/2013 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/4/2014 12:52:17 PM
Creation date
5/4/2014 12:48:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Meeting Type
Regular
City Clerk - Doc Type
Minutes
City Clerk - Date
10/9/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning & Zoning Commission/ <br />Local Planning Agency <br />October 9, 2013 <br />Page 7 <br />the ordinance that was included in the agenda packet has been modified to allow the City Commission to determine the <br />administrative fee to be charged for the utility fee deferment. <br />Ms. Regan requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City <br />Commission for LPA 13 -09 related to Chapter 86, Utilities as provided in the draft ordinance. <br />In response to the City Commission's question, Ms. Smith explained that there is an application fee that can be <br />imposed by the City Commission. She said the change to the ordinance allows the City Commission to set that application <br />fee by resolution. Ms. Smith said that it is more difficult to change fees that are in the City Code and this change allows the <br />City Commission to set the fee by resolution. Ms. Smith explained that the applicant will apply to the City Commission for <br />the fee deferral and at that time the Commission will determine if the impact and utility fees will be deferred from the time of <br />issuance of the building permit to the certificate of completion. <br />After a brief discussion regarding impact and utility fee deferment, Mr. Meadows asked if there was anyone in the <br />audience who wished to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. Mr. James Fraleigh, 23 Teresa Court, <br />Casselberry, Florida came forward to speak against this request. Mr. Fraleigh felt that developers didn't care about the <br />community and their bottom line was to make their money and leave. He felt that the developer should be held accountable <br />at the beginning of the development process. He said it is a part of doing business. Mr. Fraleigh was concerned that the <br />developer could walk away from the project and not be held responsible for paying for the utilities. Mr. Fraleigh felt that it <br />was a bad idea. <br />A general discussion ensued regarding the deferment on the utility fees to the certificate of completion and the <br />application fee for the request to the deferment. In response to the Commission question, Ms. Smith stated that the full use <br />of the utilities would not be available to the site until the fees are paid and the certificate of completion is issued. <br />A discussion ensued regarding modifying Section 86.3(a) and lien rights. It was decided to modify Section 86.3(a) <br />to read: <br />Generally. Any applicant may enter into a Fee Deferral Agreement with the City designed to allow the applicant to <br />defer payment of water benefit fees, water connection fees, sewer benefit fees, or sewer connection charges; --uetg <br />such time as the prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.