Minutes 11-20-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the adequacy of proposed sewage storage facilities and adequacy of public safety protection. The Planning Board made an affirmative finding that the developer had met their burden. Last, but certainly not least, is the finding of the general regulatory standards as contained within Section 5.3.2.a.2.a. The first one being is that the use will maintain or promote the health, safety, or general welfare. Within the script and within Attachment 6, which is the findings of fact, you will note that the Planning Board made several references to evidence entered into the record and how they confirmed their finding. The same with Section 5.3.2.a.2.b, which was a requirement that the applicant demonstrate that the proposed use maintain the value of contiguous property. Again, you will note the Planning Board made an affirmative finding, listing specifically those items in the record that would justify their finding. Finally the Planning Board made an affirmative finding with respect to 5.3.2.a.2.c that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and it is in compliance with the plan for physical development of the County as provided in these regulations, specifically the UDO and the Comprehensive Plan. Madame Chair, I would be happy to answer questions at this time, however, before questions are asked I would ask that the Board acknowledge and have a motion to place this agenda packet into the record. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to place this agenda packet into the record. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Pelissier: So we can have further discussion before we close the public hearing, because after that, we cannot. Any questions, any comments before we close the public hearing? Commissioner Jacobs: I have several questions. I have a question for the County Attorney about the applicant's assertion that a condition that the Triangle Land Conservancy might close a trail that could result in an invalidation of their special use permit. Have I heard that correctly? Could you just address whether that is in fact a valid assertion? John Roberts: I don't remember hearing that. Is that in the packet somewhere? Commissioner Jacobs: I thought that's what Mr. Harvey said. Michael Harvey: That's correct. It's actually contained in Attachment 2. As a summary, the Triangle Land Conservancy indicated that they would allow a trail to be extended. They require the applicant to bear some financial burden and pay for stewardship and that TLC technically reserves the right to limit or require the trail to close in the event it became a potential hazard on the property. The applicant's response, and I'm paraphrasing somewhat, essentially indicates that they would not want to go to the expense of developing and installing the trail if it is subject to be closed by TLC, and #2, if they are required to have the trail which is subsequently required to be closed they would not want to create a situation causing a technical violation of the SUP and therefore risk having the SUP revoked.