Agenda - 05-05-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 27 Kizer clarified that there is a distinction in the procedures and evidence for a planned development as opposed to a general rezoning. Smith noted that the Planning Board effectively denied the rezoning by the negative finding on the zoning criteria and must forward a recommendation for denial . She added, however, that the last time the Planning Board recommended to the Board of Commissioners denial and in addition, forwarded recommended conditions of approval should the Board of Commissioners approve the rezoning. MOTION; Shanklin moved a positive finding on general standard #1 (Public health, safety and welfare) . Seconded by Pilkey. Kizer commented that no evidence was presented at the public hearing to suggest that this project will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare. He added that the burden in the Special Use Permit process is on those opposing the development. Jacobs noted the finding needed to be based on a preponderance of the evidence. VOTE: 5 in favor (Yuhasz, Shanklin, Walters, Lewis, Kizer) . 6 opposed (Jacobs, Pilkey, Best, Kramer, Margison, Hubbard) . MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on general standard #2 (Property Value) . Seconded by Lewis. Kizer emphasized that the decision must be based on the evidence presented not on a feeling. VOTE: 9 in favor. 2 opposed (Best, Hubbard) . MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on general standard #3 (Land Use Plan) . Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed (Best, Hubbard, Jacobs) . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval Seconded by Kramer. Yuhasz asked cthat tthere be 8a friendly amendment limiting the motion to conditions 1-6. Amendment accepted. VOTE: Unanimous.