Agenda - 10-05-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Il TA D, v . 1190 be a subjective evaluation as to whether the area is in or adjoined to the higher density area. His contention is that it is in the higher density area. Mr. Chandler continued that these same criteria were In effect in 1985 when an application for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan was made pertaining to the 1 .41 acre tract located between the .59 acres and the concrete plant. Recognizing the critical need resulting from the changed conditions and environmental problem, the Land Use Plan amendment for the 1 .41 acre tract was granted. Mr. Chandler proceded with slides of the property in order to show the location of the .59 acres and the surrounding commercial uses. There were slides also of the retention ponds and reclamation system. Mr. Chandler indicated that when he submits an application for rezoning and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit he would make a detailed presentation Concerning the exact location and the nature of the retention ponds and the recyclying equipment and the effect of such use backing up to neighboring property. He noted that such a detailed presentation was not appropriate at this hearing. He asked that Phil Post, an engineer, speak regarding the conditions which created the necessity of the retention ponds. He also noted that Tom Capewell would be speaking concerning the fact that the secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan will not create a situation which will result in there being an adverse effect on the fair market value of the surrounding area. ed.iL-!QSIL engineer, gave background information regarding the changed conditions, the technical reasons why the original request was brought to the Board and approved and to add further information to Planning Staff 's questions in respect to the appropriateness of the Land Use Plan change. Post addressed the concern of the existence of utilities. He indicated the existing water lines, lines, telephone services one lines, the excellent location for the road transportation systemandthe railroad transportation system. He continued stating that the surrounding and existing land uses were compatible with what would be a very small expansi-on of the concrete plant operation. Population density does not seem to be this case as a criteria. The quite as applicable in the plant into compliance with +heimost uppto—dater environmental guidelines. He explained how the runoff would be captured by the ponds and recycled to be used In making concrete. Post reemphasized that the system required by OEM is In place and operational as intended. This request, if approved, would bring the applicant in compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The .59 --, tract -of land -would be used as a permanent buffer which would bring the plant more into compliance with the buffering requirements that have been added. Planning Board Member Chris Best asked whet was being stored on the western end of the property and Mr. Chandler stated that nothing is on that land at this time. Previously concrete barriers used In the construction of 1-40 were stored In this area. In answer to a question from Best on the location of the noted that the present location of the ponds, Post components to be contained In one site. Ponds would allow all runoff Chandler explained the process used In washing down the concrete trucks at the end of the day. Commissioner Willhoit asked that Phil Post address the fact that the ponds, If located on the western side, could have resulted in them being part of the land already properly zoned and would not have required any