Agenda - 11-20-2012 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12 1 Board meeting. Attachment 3 is the excerpts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. 2 Attachment 4 is the excerpts of the approved July 11, 2012 Planning Board Regular Meeting 3 Minutes. Attachment 5 is a letter from the applicant accepting the recommended conditions. 4 Attachment 6 is the Planning Board recommended Findings of Fact. You also have at your 5 place a script to assist you in making the required motions associated with this project. 6 7 As you will recall, this item was presented at the May 29th Quarterly Public Hearing. There were 8 certain questions asked during the hearing, which we have included in Attachment 1, the 9 Planning Board abstract for your review. You will note that the Planning Board at their July 11th 10 regular meeting found unanimously that the applicant had met their burden with respect to all 11 facets with respect to the project and various standards of the UDO. As we articulated in the 12 script, as well as articulated in Attachment 6, there are specific references with compliance 13 Section 2.2 and 2.7(3) UDO Class A Special Use permit application submittal requirements. 14 Section 2.7.5 indicating that all applicable notification criteria has been adhered to, Sections 3.3 15 and 6.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance had been adhered to. As a result the application 16 was deemed to be compliant with respect to UDO submittal requirements. Compliance with 17 Sections 5.9 and 6.8.6, the specific land use regulations governing the development of utilities 18 and development of land use buffers on the property, compliance with the specific findings of 19 fact contained in Section 5.3.2. The Planning Board also made affirmative findings on Sections 20 5.3.2 (A) (2), a, b, and c; all of which is contained within your packet. The Planning Board 21 recommended approval of this project. The Planning staff also supports the issuance of the 22 Special Use Permit. There are going to be a total of six conditions as part of this project. The 23 applicant is technically meeting all of those conditions and we believe there is sufficient 24 evidence articulating this fact already present within the record. I'd be more than happy to 25 answer any questions that you have at this time. 26 27 Commissioner Hemminger: Isn't it possible to put one of these on the screen and group 28 them that way. 29 30 John Roberts: There has to be a record in case it's appealed. Unlike your normal minutes, a 31 quasi-judicial hearing has to be verbatim, so there has to be something for a judge to read if a 32 case is appealed to Superior Court. Putting it up on the screen I don't think transfers very well 33 to a transcript. 34 35 Commissioner Hemminger: It would be helpful, though, I think, for the public to see what 36 we're reading off instead of just reading off very quickly, to be able to see what we're actually 37 doing, because with the dates and times and subsections and numbers, no one is going to be 38 able to track that in the audience. 39 40 John Roberts: I misunderstood what you were saying, I thought you were saying put it up on 41 the screen and vote on what you see. 42 43 Commissioner Hemminger: I would still prefer to have it on the screen so that they know 44 what we are doing.