Minutes 02-21-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

denoting that it would adhere to this condition. The fact that the project had been approved by the Fire Marshal's Office, Solid Waste, North Carolina Department of Transportation, and Planning Staff, and most importantly, that there had been no public comments denoting opposition to the ~roposal entered into the record or brought forth in a Quarterly Public Hearing for the January 4t Planning Board meeting that refuted any of the applicant's claims. They further made a motion that the project would enhance or maintain adjacent property values, again, relying on the applicant's testimony at both meetings, the aforementioned real estate appraisal assessments that were submitted into the record, and of course, most importantly, that no evidence had been submitted to refute these claims. Last but not least, they made a finding that the location and character of the school and the proposed expansion plan as submitted would be in harmony with the area in which it was located; based again on the applicant's testimony, based on the narrative submitted, and based on the fact that no substantial evidence had been submitted to refute the applicant's claim. The Planning Board has recommended approval with the imposition of 12 conditions, which are located on page 71 of your abstract. These conditions require the applicant to apply for all necessary permits. It also requires that the County Board of Commissioners approve a resolution or ordinance submitting the zoning atlas as requested by the applicant. You will also note that the North Carolina Department of Transportation, one recommended condition is that the applicant goes through the appropriate driveway application process and that they adhere to all requirements from the North Carolina Department of Transportation in terms of getting that approval. The applicant's engineer, Mr. Tony Whitaker, is here this evening. The Planning staff has recommended this item be approved and the Planning Board has recommended that it be approved. So the Manager's recommendation this evening is that you convene the public hearing, accept any additional comments, enter all of the evidence into the record that is contained in the attachment, you close the public hearing, approve the ordinance contained in Attachment 8 approving the rezoning of the property, and that you go through the process of acting on the findings of fact that are detailed for you in the script. Chair Pelissier: I want to note at this time that there is no one from the public who has signed up to speak to this item, but I will ask if there is anyone who wishes to do so. There are none. Commissioner Jacobs: I just wanted to understand since I was the one who brought it up - on page 37 where we have the Memorandum from Tom Konsler with the Health Department essentially stating that the wastewater treatment system will be inspected annually and that's consistent with the County's Wastewater Treatment Management Program. My question is was bringing this up as a condition superfluous, would it have happened anyway? I just want to know for future reference to see what the parameters of the Wastewater Treatment Management Program are. Michael Harvey: My initial reaction is that would have happened automatically because that is the standard policy of the Environmental Health Department. As indicated earlier at the Quarterly Public Hearing, it is never a bad idea to impose or to reference conditions, especially with a special use permit. Commissioner McKee: I'd just like to express appreciation for the consideration that the school gave to the ball field.