Agenda - 09-30-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. • 101 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8-16-85 18 continued that there was not enough evidence that the conditions were satisfied to warrant changing the Land Use Plan . Pilkey added that someone must look out for the neighborhood and that there was not sufficient justification to change the adoption of the Land Use Plan . Shanklin responded that at the time the compromise was made on the zoning lot, if Chandler had owned the additional property, it likely would have been . included in the industrial zoning . Yuhasz commented that he was not opposed to buffer or rural areas, but that he was concerned there is a misconception that all undeveloped areas constitute rural buffers . Jacobs felt that they are unless there is a compelling reason to change the area Pearson responded the applicant was operating under a DEM directive and that the ponds were proposed for a Logical Location . Best questioned whether the ponds could be placed on the west side. Pearson responded that all the structures are presently on the east side of the Lot. Best responded that the property could be regraded . Pearson questioned the- feasibility al* this without dismantling the plant . Pilkey cited comments on page 4, paragraph 2 of the August 28 , 1985 public hearing minutes . Pearson clarified that different types of facilities were being referenced and that the proposed improvements would leave the residential areas better off. He added that the damage was done years ago when the plant was installed . He continued that the proposed screening and driveway arrangements would address both aesthetic and safety concerns . He felt the proposal would result in improvement of the genera ! area Pearson questioned the petition submitted by opponents citing signatures of high school children Living 1/2 mile away from the site Kramer added that though the petition was well intended , it paints the issues in "black and white" . . .