Agenda - 10-15-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 included as part of the Land Use intensity System. Article 7.3 does give same flexibility to modify the 10% reduction. Susan Smith indicated that the reference to Article 7.3 has been part of the record since the first public hearing and specifically addressed by staff to any questions at that time. Commissioner Marshall indicated that the interpretations make the Ordinance less effective. The Ordinance does not serve the purpose for which it is intended and that is to have every citizen, developer, and person to be able to observe what is happening and know what to expeCt. It is important to deal fairly with everyone. When the Ordinance is watered down and changes are made which are hard to substantiate, it makes the Ordinance less and less effective. Chair Willhoit stated that Article 7.3 deals with the public purpose, and it is a question of how best that purpose is met. Commissioner Marshall questioned how far Article 7.3 could be taken and stated that it had not been used in previous requests. Marvin Collins commented that Article 7.3, second paragraph, stated above gives the Board latitude to modify any PD regulation as long as it is found that the public purpose has been satisfied. Susan Smith indicated that the negative finding found for landscaping was because the developer did not interpret the ordinance to address the requirements in the railroad right-of-way. There are conditions of approval attached that address the negative finding. Commissioner Walker asked about the railroad right-of-way and Stith indicated that an obstructions can be located within ten feet of the railroad. Chair Willhoit noted that the negative finding cited in Article 12.4 has been satified by the conditions attached to the project. Chair Willhoit asked for clarification on Condition #4 and requested that the item be more specific. Smith indicated the word 'retained" should replace "maintained." There is existing vegetation adjacent to the railroad tract to which the condition makes reference. Me questioned the meaning of fencing in Condition #9 and Susan Saith read the Planning Board minutes which indicated that "suitable fencing be required to prevent access by children and animals." Commissioner Walker asked if the Board could require a specific pond be fenced without requiring that all ponds be fenced. Susan SMith indicated the Ordinance permits in a Special Use Permit process that conditions be attached to address those concerns raised and identified with the development. Stith noted that the vegetation on the back side along the railroad will be six feet. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded byCcaudssioner Marshall that the Board of Commissioners findings of fact are in concurrence with the Planning Board findings. Chair Willhoit indicated a decision rust be made on whether the public purpose has been met by an equivalent or to a greater degree by the applicant and as embellished by the special conditions attached. PlUtastulig2martsE2kat UMANIMOUS. Motion was made byCcendssioner Marshall for denial on the basis of 7.17b, 7.17c and 6.12a. Alonzo Coleman, Attorney, noted that in the event the Board made a negative finding that has been addressed by the special conditions and the Board desires to issue the Special Use Permit, it most state each negative finding and the special condition that satisfies the Ordinance. MOTION FAILED FOR. LACK OF A SMOND. Chair Willhoit requested comments from the Board on the special conditions. Susan Smith indicated that the vegetation referred to in Condition #4 may be used to satisfy part of the requirement in Condition #5. She