Agenda - 11-20-2012 - 6c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

s 81 Commissioner Hemminger said that she wants this project to succeed, but there are many issues that were not covered in the documentation the Board received (i.e., traffic, storm water runoff, etc.). She just wants it to be the best possible project and have it succeed. She feels like the application is disjointed. Michael Harvey said that this was supposed to be a negotiable site development process. There are several concerns of staff and there are issues that need to be addressed. He said that the applicant is seeking the Board's guidance on what should come next and he thinks it would be perfectly reasonable for the Board to ask and provide direct guidance on what should occur next and allow the Planning Board to continue this review at the October meeting. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is glad this proposal is coming forward. He said that the next presentation should have the staff concerns and the responses from the applicant. He is more interested in having buffers along NC 57 than on other parts of the property because these facilities are not very attractive. He suggested having some bullet points come back to the Board. Chad Abbott said that he is certain that the applicant has addressed the storm water and the traffic/fire and turn radius issues. The big item is the buffer, and he needs guidance on this. He said that the applicant will put in a well if needed. He said that the staff-requested buffer is very expensive. Commissioner Jacobs said that all of this needs to be put in writing. Michael Harvey said that the Board has some options - identify areas the applicant needs to address, adjourn the public hearing to a date and time certain asking the applicant to submit written responses to the issues, asking the Planning Board to review the project, and asking the Planning Board to continue the dialogue at the October meeting. He said that there is information that is lacking and everyone is frustrated with that. Chair Pelissier said that she has heard that the Board really does want a well on this site. Regarding the buffers, she thinks that there should be some flexibility. She said that all of the storage facilities that she has seen around here do not have buffers. She would not want to put restrictions on this project when other similar projects did not have the same restrictions. Commissioner Hemminger said that she would like to keep this process on track and come back at a September meeting. Larry Wright asked the Board to provide some options for the buffer for the Planning Board to discuss. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would support the small buffer on the perimeter as shown, as well as the clustered buffer. Chair Pelissier said that the Board is happy with the proposed buffer. Commissioner Gordon said that she does not agree with the proposed buffers. She said that she would still like to see the Planning Board comments. She would like to see a summary come back on September 18th. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to seek further clarity, get responses back in writing and come back at the September 18th meeting, and to use that meeting to provide further direction to the applicant and Planning Board regarding the Commissioners' preferences on the items that have been identified as areas of concern and that are addressed in writing by the applicant and by appropriate agencies; and to adjourn the public hearing until September 18th to allow staff and the applicant to bring forward the written requests and information as required by this meeting.