Agenda - 02-18-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12C DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 Page 11 Shanklin inquired about specific landscaping. Smith noted the applicant had specified a screening requirement on the plan which is described in the ordinance. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 6. 24 e) 3-4. Kramer seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous Smith informed the Board that they could consider the negative findings as is in making their decision on the project or could attach conditions of approval to address these findings . Shanklin suggested that the Board consider the conditions whether or not the project is recommended for approval . The Board considered the general standards. MOTION: Walters moved a positive finding on the satisfaction of the standard that the project promotes the public health safety and welfare. Yuhasz seconded the motion. Kramer indicated there were substantive questions regarding public safety because of design, objections raised by neighbors , objection to the commercial area and concern with traffic flow. Walters felt no specific testimony to that effect had been provided at public hearing. Best expressed concern with water and transportation issues , noting the applicant did not address these problems adequately. He cited school capacity. Walters felt this project could not address school capacity. He suggested that the school children would be there whether one project or many were approved. He noted the problem of overcrowding already exists and all projects impact the schools . Kramer expressed concern with the locational impacts of water and traffic. Walters noted rural land cannot be preserved if development is allowed to be dispersed. He added if a town was desireable, it was best to have it where services are available.