Agenda - 10-04-2011 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 470 .Michael Harvey: Beginning on page 69, we have outlined the applicant's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the 471 UDO. Reviewed section. 472 473 Rachel Hawkins: How do we know there will always be a homeowner's association?- 474 475 Susan Levy: Our application narrative indicates that there will be a homeowners association formed to address local 476 maintenance issues. 477 478 Michael-Harvey: We also have on record that the applicant at the May Quarterly Public Hearing as well the Special Use Permit 479 mandates the creation of a homeowner's association guaranteeing the upkeep of all common property. There are obligated by 480 their own testimony and the recommended condition associated with the SUP. 481 482 MOrtoN made by Larry Wright #a find that the applicant complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (.B) and adapts staffs 483 recommended findings. Seconded Alan Campbell. 484 485 VOTE: Unanimous 486 487 MichaelHarvey:_ -On pag_a 71, this is compliance with the General Standards of special use permits in Sections 5.3.2 (A) 2. For 488 example (a), if you find in the affirmative, you could site testimony by the applicant at the May Quarterly Public Hearing, 489 applicant's responses in the narrative as well at the July Ei Planning Board meeting concerning. water line, sewer line. If you were 490 find in the negative, you need to submit for the record, the reasons why and where that information comes from in the record. If 491 you find in the affirmative and you do recommend approval, we ask that you recommend the 70 some conditions recommended 492 by staff to include_the specific condition recommended by Dr. Wright also. 493 494 Brian Crawford: We should go through each finding to make sure the planning board agrees that it does or does not. Section 495 5.3.2~(A) (2) (a). Has the planning board found evidence that will support that finding? 496 497- Larry Wright: As per the applicants testimony in the May 23 Quarterly Public Hearing and the July 6 planning board meeting. 498 499 Brian Crawford: Any other testimony that will support that finding. 500 501 Mark Marcoplos: We have all this documentation that has been filed that shows we will have more fire hydrants, the water 502 situation has been well addressed. The public safety officers and fire departments have signed off on their concerns. Larry 503 mentioned overall principal in the Comprehensive Plan that affordable housing is deemed to be a contribution to the general 504 welfare of the citizens and that has to be acknowledged. I am impressed with the thoroughness of all the different fine items 505 reviewed and found to be compliant. It looks like it could be a model. 506 507 Brian Crawford: Under Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the planning board has found evidence as per the May 23 Quarterly Public- 508 Hearing and the July 6 planning board meeting as well as review by staff, the documentation provided to the planning board and 509 the letters from public safety and fire marshal that supports this finding. 510 511 MorioN made-by Larry Wright finding that the use as proposed by the applicant will maintain or promote the public health, safety, 512 and general welfare based on the application, testimony from the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing, the July 6, 2011 513 Planning Board meeting, the applicant's responses to the various recommended conditions, the site plan, all evidence from the 514 fire marshal and other public safety agencies. Seconded Mark Marcoplos. 515 516 VorE: Unanimous 517 518 Brian Crawford: Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b). Before we talk about that, can you flush that out a little Mr. Harvey? 519 520 Michael Harvey: The requirement on the applicant is they submit the necessary documentation to prove that this proposed 521 development will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. In parentheses, you will see unless the use is a public 522 necessity. It is my point that the only group who determines what is or is not a public necessity is the BOCC. This is this is not a 523 public necessity as such the applicant was required to submit the necessary documentation demonstrating compliance. This 524. document was submitted at the May Quarterly Public Hearing, specifically an Impact Analysis prepared by Mr. Everett `Uc' 525 Knight indicating that this use, in his opinion, will maintain value of contiguous property. 526 527 Brian. Crawford: Has the planning board reviewed and found evidence presented at the May 23 Quarterly Hearing or July 6 or 528 any other submitted documentation that will support that finding or does planning board not agree. 45 9