Minutes 09-01-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Planning Board, and ultimately— originally, the staff relied on to make an affirmative recommendation — is listed for you. As you can see the rationale, both staff and the Planning Board. Then finally it's voting on whether or not the Applicant complies with the provisions of 5.3.2. And again, there are three individual areas you're going to be making a recommendation on: First, that the use will promote the public health, safety and general welfare. We have provided you in this script the language, or the findings, of the Planning Board. And again, without repeating myself, but to reiterate, one of those findings was that there was a lack of competent or material evidence entered into the record indicating the Applicant had not met there burden. Next 5.3.2 (A) 2 (b). is that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. I'll remind you, at the Quarterly Public Hearing, we had testimony from the Applicant's appraiser, and there were questions posed not only by this Board, by the Planning Board, as to the contents of those documents that were submitted into the record at the Public Hearing. Finally, 5.3.2 (A) 2 (c): that the use is in harmony with the area, and consistent with the physical development of the County, as embodied in the comprehensive plan. If there are affirmative findings on those three items, we will ultimately need you then to make a motion to approve the Special Use Permit, and impose the conditions as we have detailed in article 5. 1 know that's a lot to digest, but part of the reason we have to go through this with you is that Special Use Permits, as you know, require a heightened level of action in order to insure consistency, not only with our ordinance, but with State law. Pat and I are here to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Chair McKee: Are there any questions either on the amendment— not the amendment —the abstract, and the attachments; or in the instructions that Mr. Harvey just gave us? Commissioner Dorosin: So all these motions need to be made individually, we can't lump any of them together, in the interest of expediting this process? Michael Harvey: I am going to say that this Board can certainly make a motion to approve the Planning Board recommendation as it relates to, section 2.2, etc. That can be one motion. And I will also suggest sir, that you should defer to the County Attorney, but I would strongly urge you to make independent motions of findings on section 5.3.2 (a) which is consistency with a con plan, promoting or— excuse me — insuring property value and what not. I think those needn't to be separately. Commissioner Dorosin: Consigliore, do you concur? John Roberts: I do. Recent case law— or within the last several years — has leaned towards more specificity from Boards making these types of quasi-judicial decisions. So I do recommend each one. It's true, there's been no opposition voiced for this, and so an appeal is unlikely. But I believe the Applicant would be more comfortable if the Board did go through each motion individually to establish a record. Chair McKee: And, as Chair, I would ask that we do take each — I realize it will take longer— but I would ask that we would take each one of them individually as we go through. It'd be less chance of either missing one, or misstating one. Commissioner Dorosin: That's fine.