Minutes - 19840409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 b 3 the property value, they did recommend finding that based on the assumption in the ordinance that buffers were specifically required to preserve and protect adjacent properties and that in their opinion they had conflicting basis on which to make a recommendation. So, therefore, the Planning Board really did not recommend a specific finding. They felt it impossible to make a finding due to the conflicting evidence. In terms of Article 8.2.2(c) - compliance with the general plans - the Planning Board recommended finding the applicant in compliance. Tn terms of article 8.2.4(a) the adequacy of the utilities proposed to serve the development, the Planning Board recommended finding the applicant in compliance. Tn terms of Article 8.2.4(b) the plans proposed with the protection of fire, police and rescue squad, the Planning Board also recommended finding the applicant in compliance. The next article 8.2.4(c) - the adequacy of vehicular access recommended finding that the applicant did not meet the requirements for adequate access because of the use of John Breckenridge Drive and other residential streets for access purposes. The Planning Board considered 8.2.1(a).- vrhether or not overall the applicant had provided competent evidence to support the propasal and the Planning Board recommended finding that the applicant did not present competent evidence in that they had not complied with the 100 feet buffer strip and were also using local residential streets for access. They then considered the requirements set forth in Section 7 which deals specifically with Planned Development. The first one they considered was section 7.4.1 in relation to transportation facilities and again they sited the problems with the use of John Breckenridge Drive as a means of access and they approved a motion which indicated a problem with compliance with Article 7.4.1. They then discussed Article 7.4.2 which also deals with the adequacy of public utilities and Article 7.4.3 the relation to surrounding properties and in partecular vrhether or not there were conditions on the site such as soils, flooding, or topographical conditions which would create hazards for people living in the area. They recommend finding that there were no such problems. The Planning Board then considered Section 7.1.4 - site plan requirements for Planned Developments and whether the applicant had complied and they approved a motion indicating that based on the previous findings dealing with the special use permit it was not necessary to make public comment and what they were specifically saying was that the applicant had not complied with all the requirements. It was not a motion related to the approval of the entire project. The motion was made to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that the proposal in its present form be denied and the motion carried 6-1 so the Planning Board's recommendation is for denial of the request. Commissioner Marshall requested Attorney Gledhill to breef the soars on the procedures for making decisions under the special use process as required by court ruling. Gledhill briefed the Board on the procedures for making a decision in the special use process. The process is that of deciding facts on which you make findings and issue the special use permit. For denial et must be determened that there is a health, safety and welfare problem with the project. Tf all the requirements are met and evidence still shows there es a health, safety and welfare problem that was not anticipated then that is a basis for denial. Article 7 and 8 requirements must all be met and the procedure followed as outlined in Article 7 in order to essue a special use permit. If a finding has not been met the special use process stops and the