Minutes - 19840409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1b~ 2 Commissioner ~•~hitted pointed out that if this project is subsidized, a decision will need to be made for subsidizing other like projects. Commissioner Lloyd noted that at least 50v of the septic tanks in the sewer district were malfunctioning. A gentlemen from the audience who lives in Efland and who has a good septic tank emphasized that because of health reasons he was willing to tap on to help the remainder of the people in the area. 2- H&ME~~I3 no~sj~T$ "- Pj„A1+1NED DEVELDPME~)T A;yLD,~~UBDIVIkSION_ PHASE. I Commissioner i~iarshall presented this agenda item. The January 23rd public hearing was held open to receive the Planning Board's recommendation on this development and subdivision. NOTE: Because this is a special use permit procedure, parts of the following is verbatim. Vice-Chair ASarshall explained that Hampton Dawns would be considered as presented in the agenda and at the January 23rd public hearing which was held open to receive the Planning Board's recommendation on both the Hampton Downs Planned Development and the Subdivision Phase I. A:arvir. Collins, Director of Planning, presented the following information: The Planning Board considered a number of item's and made the recuired findings. Collins went through the findings and the final Planning Board recommendation. One of the first decisions made was in regard to article 8.8 concerning special uses which had to do with the regulations governing the individual special uses and in particular the planned development requirements and application requirements. A list was supplied to the developers of all the planned development requirements and application requirements. The Planning Board found that the applicant had complied with all the requirements of 8.8. The second consideration was article 8.2.1(b) where they had to make findings concerning compliance with specific rules governing the special use. One of the first things considered had to do with the provision in the ordinance which allows for modification--in particular the 100 foot buffer requirement for planned development. There was a motion to grant the modification but it failed due to a lack of a second and the Planning Board moved that the developer be required to adhere to the 100 foot buffer on all sides and this motion passed. In regard to the finding effect on article R.2.1(b) the Planning Board recommended finding that the developer was not in compliance with all the requirements and that they had not complied with the 100 foot setback. __ The next finding of fact that is required to be made concerned Article 8.2.2(a) that the use will or will not promote the public, health, safety, - and general welfare. One of their major concerns was the traffic generated by the development and the access points to the development. The Planning Board recommended finding that the applicant had not complied with Article 8.2.2(a) due to the fact that the traffic generated by development would use John Breckenridge Drive and other local residential streets for access. The next article in which a finding had to be made was article 8.2.2(b) which concerned whether or not the use would maintain or enhance the value of continuous property. There was some discussion on this and the motion ar action taken indicated compliance with the buffer strip requirement was lacking and although no specific evidence was presented at the hearing which +on,,l ri ;nr;; rata tha;- tha lark of tha 10(1 fnnt htiffar wnttld r7 []VArRPIV a'Ff ect