Minutes - 19841105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~4ti~ 11 general vael~are, if located where proposed and developed and operated accorcing to the plan submitted; (~) the use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous pro?~erty; and (3) the use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these reculaticns or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Or~;nge County Board of Commissioners. __._ Gledhill indicates? this Article really relates to a situation where all of the specific findings are net but vrhere there is some s_ecific health, safety arra welfare reason why the project was turned docan. a Commissioner t•Iarshall notes; she was tryinc to aclc;ress this. Gledhill noted that what has been done is to say there are no things rot satisfied. Cor..missioner T•7hitted seconded the motion. VOTE:. C1P7I`.r?II70US Commissioner ~^hitted noted that recommendation ;kS from tl-_e Planning Boc-:rs, satisfies the lancscaping and screening finding. Conr.:issioner t,tarshall noted there is nothing to spool: to the negative findinc on Article 7.15.3 concerning setbacks. Comr,.issianer ?•?hit.ted noted the condition that the developer be on notice of the required setbacks. Chair T•'illhoit pointed out that if the rezoning resulted in more restrictions, the owners could not 'be put or. property that already ~aGs -- underc:evelopec:. Gledhill pcir,ted out teat if this recuires setbacks accorc~ine to the existing zoning, then the applicant would have-to build it according to those setbacks. Commissioner ?ihitted suggested adding a condition .that the requires: setbacks be met. Gledhill suggested Condition ;~9 be changed from "be submittes: for approval" to "be submitted and approved". Chair 97illhoit noted condition ~$ should indicate that the applicant obtain approval instead of negotiate to obtain approval. .-!oticn was made by Commissioner [•lhitted, seconsed by Commissioner 1`Tarshall to approve the special use application caith the inclusion of the above recommendations ans; the recommendations as cutlined by the Planning ]hoard. VCTE: L11JAP'Tt$OC1S ~~~~- _ "iarvir. Collis , Planning Director, noted this request was _._. considered by the Planning Board on October 15 and recommended approval subject to six conditions a.s listed in the agenda abstract as well as the findings as listed. Potion :•~as made b,~ Commissioner i•'hi.t.ted, seconded by Commisioner • Lloyd to approve a positive finding or: Articles 8.6, c~.8, l through 1?.. VOTE': U1•?At]?tlOCiS Motion ~•~as made by Commissioner *Thitted, seconded by Commissioner YTalker to ap~+rave r~ positive finding on Article 8.2.~a, b anc c. Cor;missioner '•'hitted as~:ed for clarification of Article P. 2. ~ and was to].s, there ;_~i?.1 be a total of 15 re: iderts..