Minutes - 19820823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1" '41a : b. Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. Planning Board -found the applicant has not met the requirement for adequate fire protection as evidenced by testimony of Dr. Thomas Griggs on pages 13 and 14 of the draft July 8th minutes, and letter dated June 24th by Dr. Edward Johnson. The vote was 5 in favor, 2 against and one abstention. c. Methond and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. This item was found to be contained in the application and testimony_ The vote was 4 in favor, 3 against and one abstention. This motic... as you can tell by the close vote, had considerable discussion as there had 4. been a previous motion that there was not adequate vehicular access as demon- strated by testimony concerning traffic counts and projected increases in traffic counts. . That concluded the specific .requirements for which the applicant carries the burden. We next went to the general requirements where the burden shifts to those critizing the the proposal. In these, these are a little bit difficult to deal with cause you deal with negatives and you have to find evidence that supports a negative conclusion. The best way I can state i it is that: a. The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare 1 if located where proposed and developed according to the plan submitted. I The Board found that there is specific evidence to show that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare for two areas 1) fire protection and FAA State regulations. The vote on that motion 6 in favor and 2 against. The references may be incorrect because v.e ',:-d a different pagination than on this one and if you'll give me some tfi,= a� C a later point I'll correct them for you. But primarily they are based on our specific findings. b. Use will not maintain or enhance the value of of contiguous property i unless the use is a public necessity in vghich case the use need not m� ntain or enhance the value of contiguous property. The Planning Board found that 1 the evidence shows the use will not maintain or enhance the value of con- tiguous property; specifically see the findings of Wallace Kaufman and Bland Simpson in the draft July 8th minutes. And the vote on that was 6 in favor, I opposed and one abstention. c. Use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical develop- ment of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the comprelr:,,rsive plan or portion thereof. The Planning Board found that the evidence ;iows that the use is not in compliance with the general plans for the devl-:'opment �. of the County. Specifically the adopted goals of the Land Use Plan, goals Two, Five and Seven; the adverse impact the development could have c.., the agricultural land uses in the area. Again on pages may be incorrect, and that s the compatible land uses in the approach zones for airports are not compatible with the current zoning around the proposed airport. The vote on that motion was five in favor and three against: This conclusion, item 'c', specifically the Board felt permitted your Board to make a site specific evaluation of the proposal and tie the proposal in with the general plans for the County. Therefore, the Planning Board's final recommendation is that the Special Use Permit be denied because the applicant failed to meet the conditions for the permit required by the Zoning Ordinance as evidenced by these findings. The vote on that motion was seven tin favor and. one against. i. In the past, several Commissioners have .asked the Board for guidance on proposals if they decide to do contrary to what the Planning Board has recommended. Therefore, the Planning Board then looked at the project and made a list of nine conditions that they would like to see addr..-ssed and included should the Board decide to permit the request. This also raises a concern that the Planning Board has in how we approach Special Use Permits. I believe the Staff and the Board are pretty much in agreement on how the project should proceed in terms of v:' at it would look like, or what one air- pert :::�ul d look like. But the metier::: of doing it is in di sagre�:r,,ent. The Staff seems to feel that vie can handle it with imposed conditions that will solve all our problems. The Planning Board, however, chose to deny the pert-it. In the event that you choose to approve the permit and impose conditions to clear up any deficiencies these are some the Planning Board would like to see included: 'd