Not so bad County Commissioner Dennis Moss is sponsoring this ordinance for the May 6th County Commission Meeting. The first half seems good. It is the underlined portion I am not sure about -- mainly because I don't know what it really means. The first half seems to mean developers cannot cough up covenants at the last moment (once they see how the wind is blowing) to entice people/commissioners to pass their developments. They have to submit them ahead of time to the Director and they have to be approved as to form (that they can really be done). In other words they have to proffer perks beforehand. That is good, because then we know their strategy. I don't get the second half, but at a glance, it worries me. Any stabs at deciphering this? Should it worry me? (hit to enlarge text box).
7 comments:
I am not sure, but a reading seems to mean that they will be fair and lawful. I just find that hard to believe. But whether it is good or bad will become obvious by seeing who votes for what.
It seems like they are leaving out DRI's and what is the "concurrently" mean. My head is swelling. Does not compute.
Don't fret anymore. This is a consequence of a very contentious zoning hearing on April 24, to eliminate a covenant restricting the developer to build high-rise, high-density apartments in Princeton. Despite tremendous opposition from the community (646 letters against), Com Sorenson, moved to remove the restriction. The result: high-rise condos will be built on that lot, despite being located ONE mile from US1, not the 0.5 mile approved on the Princeton Charette. The community was ignored and the smart developer got a windfall! Most certainly after their vote, the commissioners realized they had screwed up and are trying to CYA. Too late for the Princeton folks.
Ok, here is how it works: When an ordinance is proposed to CHANGE the existing county code, the existing code is in normal text, the words they want to ELIMINATE are crossed out and the words they want to ADD are underlined. That way it is easy to see what is being eliminated and what is being added.
So the "first half" that Genius is so impressed with is not the first half at all, it is the law. The underlined portion that you are "not so sure about" is Moss's actual proposal. So, Genius, I think you better retract your "not so bad" compliment.
As for the content, the if you want to submit your proposal to change land use designation in the County Development Master Plan (CDMP), say, HYPOTHETICALLY, you want to change land use designation from "do not build here, you moron, we are going to run out of water and all die" to a more friend "please build a superstore here, along with the houses which will supply our customers" it cannot be considered unless you execute a "restrictive covenant."
A restrictive covenant writes into the land deed a description of what the land is allowed to do. For example, if there is a piece of land with a restrictive covenant stating that the land can only be used for farming, noone can buy the land and unrestrict the covenant. The law seems good because it means you cannot come in and promise to build a water fall, get approval from the BCC and then build a condo. Got it?
The underlined portion says that the existing law remains, but creates a loophole for it. It states that you DO NOT NEED A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT if your CDMP application is being reviewed by both the CDMP and the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) order.
I have no idea who sits on the DRI, but my guess is that it is now, or soon will be, a bunch of political hacks. While the proposal argues that the DRI restrictions must be the same as the CDMP restrictions, my guess is that the DRI rules are alot more lax than the restrictive covenant, which, if I understand it correctly, even the BCC cannot overturn.
Far from being not so bad, this is the same crap we always get from these elected officials.
Thanks Max...
Dri's go to the Regional Planning Council and then to the commission. I am but a babe in the woods...this is too far over my head to know what the real implications will be.
I think you guys are reading too much into what Commissioner Moss is trying to do here. You're ascribing all these alterior motives to this ordinance from a guy who just stepped up and voted to "Hold the Line".
If this is how you treat people who support your causes, I wouldn't expect that list to be groing a whole lot.
m
ear Not AN "M"
We are trying to UNDERSTAND what this ordinance means. That is not picking on a commissioner. it is an attempt to get clarity on fuzzy wording.
Another thing, we are not suck ups nor do we put blinders on just because we like something a politician does --like the unions did today. Politician activities have to be looked at. If they do something wrong we take them to task. This is not a suck-up blog. Everyone cannot be right 100% of the time. We go for a high percentage. We have criticized the mayor and sorenson at times, even though we agree with them most of the time. No one is off limits. Asking about what an ordinance means does not mean we are throwing Moss to the wolves...
Post a Comment