Agenda - 08-23-2011 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 1 I believ~that_we have provided the basic answers within the abstract on the pages that I've sited that 2 all of the specific standards be included. Within your packet are correspondence from the various 3 County staff people, specifc311y the Fire Marshall, the 5herifPs Office, Rich Shaw with DE~4PR with 4 respect to review of this application. We are confident as we continue to- move forward we can 5 address the majority of these questions and concerns with the applicant's assistance. 6 Regarding the septic issue, in consultation with Mr. Neal, the-church and~he applicant have been 7 working with Environmental- Health and they are continuing to have meetings _and dialogue as 8 necessary. It is my understanding that one- of the recommendations of the Health Department is 9 going-to be that the existing system is going to have to be expanded in orderto accommodate these 10 12 students. As we typically do, staff will be recommending formal conditions at the- Planning Board 11 level, which-will then be reviewed by the County Commissioners. Those conditions historically and 12 typically "have _always been that all appropriate permits are obtained by the applicant before an 13 occupancy. The answer to the -question of what happens if they -cannot secure those permits is that 14 they don't open. That's just a simple answer to that question. We will continue to work with the 15 applicant to supply the necessary information to address the questions posed here this evening and if 16 you have any additional questions, I'll answer them. 17 Commissioner Jacobs: Page 232 talks about screening.- It-says--that; "landscaping-and-buffering 18 plan appears to be consistent with the requirements of the ordinance." So, does that mean tha# 19 additional screening is required or the screening that's- there, especially in the parking area is 20 sufficien#? 21 Michael Harvey: No sir, we determined existing screening is sufficient to comply with the 22 requirement of the code. 23 Commissioner Jacobs: Is there any kind of requirement for a fenced area for a school? 24 Michael Harvey: No, -sir. 25 Commissioner Jacobs: So, presumably, there were some safety concerns -expressed by 26 neighbors. That would solely fall under the- purview of the teachers- and the staff of the facility to 27 make sure that the students were supervised and did not venture off the site. 28 Michael Harvey: Correct, sir. I -will, however, point out the existing recreation at the existing 29 playground does have_a fence around it to separate it from the church facility. 30 Commissioner Jacobs: I just had a question for our Attorney. Is it germane, in- a special use 31 permit, to be asking why a facility is moving from one place to another'? 32 John Roberts: If the Board of County Commissioners determines it's germane, then yes it is. You 33 are directed, commended by your ordinance to ask questions to determine the competent material 34 and substantial evidence that support the project's compliance with various regulations. Whether the 35 applicant has met the burden of proof, you have to make that determination. You determine what the 36 relevant questions are. If someone presents testimony that may not be relevant, I may advise you 37 that it's not relevant, but you still make the determination. 38 Chair Pelissier: I'll now need a motion related to the Planning Director's recommendations to 39 receive the application, 1-5, listed on page 255 and adjoum the public hearing to August 23`x. 40 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to receive the 41 application, refer the .amendment package to the Planning Board for its recommendation with a 42 request that a recommendation be returned in time for the August 23, 2011 regular BOCC meeting, 43 and adjoum the public hearing to August 23, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board 44 recommendation. 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 35