Agenda - 10-06-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

rmmlim 6 conditions could be attached to the approval which would address any concerns that resulted from the review of the site plan of the request. Because of the size of the property, there could be considerable generation of traffic. This would also be addressed through a Planned Development request. Commissioner Lloyd inquired why Planning Staff would recommend Planned Development when the applicant met all the criteria for a straight rezoning. Collins responded that the rezoning process is a more open-ended process in that the Commissioners have more latitude in making a determination as to whether or not to approve or deny the request. The Special Use or Planned Development process is more closed in that if certain findings-of-fact are made, then the Commissioners must issue the permit. Through the straight rezoning process the County loses the ability to mitigate any negative impacts that result from the project whereas a Special Use Permit or Planned Development approach would allow the County to address those impacts while at the same time allowing the citizen to use the property as he wished. Collins submitted photographs showing the present condition of the property. Ken Embree, attorney representing the Turners, indicated he had more information regarding the letter from DEM concerning the non compliance. He stated that Mr. Turner did receive a notice of the violation in May. When the investigator came out and pointed the violation out to Mr. Turner, he stopped washing the heavy equipment immediately in such a way as to cause the discharge and has refrained from doing so since that time. Mr. Embree continued that there is a special type of collection basin that can be constructed under design specifications from DEM to prevent the discharge from occurring again. He noted that Mr. Turner will comply with those regulations in order to request a permit from DEM; this would enable Mr. Turner to address the concern noted by Collins. Embree continued that before Staff knew about the discharge violation, they had recommended approval of the rezoning request. Embree indicated on a map that there are areas surrounding this property that are zoned GC-4 (General Commercial-4) near the intersection of US 70 and I-85. This is the only tract on the south side of the access for US 70 which is not zoned GC-4. Embree continued that Turner has submitted an Erosion Control Plan which has been approved and has also submitted a site plan which shows the seeding of the property and the planting of trees. Mr. Embree noted that Mr. Turner had responded to all the regulations as he was informed and encouraged the straight rezoning of the property. Commissioner Lloyd inquired why, with the problem of discharge solved, did Planning Staff not go back to its original recommendation of straight rezoning. Collins responded that the size of the tract and the potential for development and traffic generation were concerns of staff. Collins continued that the letter from DEM added to the concerns for potential for impacts with the development of the site, particularly if the major part is to be developed for the paving company. Yuhasz inquired if the traffic impacts from this property would be any greater than that from the adjoining properties currently zoned GC 4. Collins responded that they may be lesser than or greater than but there is little that can be done about those tracts already zoned GC-4.