Agenda - 08-23-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. -�� ~u�� | . b. Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection` Planning ~ord found 1hc-'��''i :cant has not net the requirement for adequate fire "° "� protection as evidenced by testimony of D r' Thomas Griggs on pages 13 and 14 of the draft July 8th minutes, and letter dated June 24th by Or, Edward Johnson The vote was 5 in favor, 2 against and one abstention. c Methond and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around "ho site. This item was found to be contained in the application and ' ` 4 in fa 3 against and one abstention, This moth testimony_ The vote was n "ur. aga n ' as you can tell by the close vote, had considerable discussion as there had ' �' been a ^~^previous motion that there was not adequate vehicular access as demon- strated u ~^-`tesdmuny concerning traffic counts and projected increases in traffic counts. That concluded the specific requirements for which the applicant carries the burden. We next went to the general requirements where the burden those shifts to ' critizing the the proposal . In those, these are a little bit difficult to deal with cause you deal with negatives and you have to find evidence that supports a negative conclosion. The best way I can state it is that: a. The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare i'' located where proposed and developed according to the plan submitted. The Board found that there is specific evidence to show that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare for two areas 1) fire protection and FAA State regulations. The vote on that motion e; :; Din favor and 2 against. The references may be incorrect because xe ':d a different pagination than on this one and if you'll give me some ti/;e' at a later point I'll correct them for you. But primarily they are kase6 on our specific findings. b. Use will not maintain or enhance the value of of contiguous property unless the use is a public necessity in which case the use need not wrn tain or enhance the value of contiguous property. The Planning Board found that the evidence shows the use will not maintain or enhance the value of con- tiguous property; specifically see the findings of Wallace Kaufman and Bland Simpson in the draft July 8th minutes, And the vote on that was G in favor, 1 opposed and one abstention. c. Use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical develop- ment of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the cnmprch ..sivp plan or portion thcreof, The Planning Board found that the evidence : haws P/an y« ' ` the use compliance �`�e i� not in nmpliance with the general plans for the davopment of the`" Co''nty. Specifically the adopted goals of the Land Use Plan, ' oaTs Two, Five and Seven; the adverse impact the development could have ( • the cultural land uses �n the area Again on pages may be incorrect, and that the agricultural land use' in the ap''roach zones for airports are not cenputible airport.with �h� current zoning around the proposed a ryor . Th e vote on that motion was five in favor and three against. This conclusion, item 'c'^ specifically the Board felt permitted your Board to make a site specific evaluation of the proposal and tie the proposal in with the general plans for the County. Therefore, the Planning Board's final recommendation is that the Special Use Pehnit be denied becauSe the applicant failed to meet the conditions for the permit required by the Zoning Ordinance as evidenced by these findings. The vote on that motion was sevenin favor and. one against. In the past, several Commissioners have asked the Board for guidance on proposals if they decide to do contrary to what the Planning Board has recommended. Therefore, the Planning Board then looked at the project and made a list of nine conditions that they would like to see uddr aed and included should the Board decide to permit the request. This also raises a concern that the Planning Board has in how we approach Special Use Permits_ I believe the Staff and the Board are pretty much in agreement on how the project should proceed in terms of vat it would look like, or what one air- port Aid look like But the met|x`.' of doing it is in disagreement, The P»r ` ' ' handle d, Staff seems to feel that we can o it with imposed conditions that will solve all our problems, The Planning Board, however, chose to deny the per0t. � Ie the event that you choose to approve the permit and impose conditions to clear up any deficiencies these are some the Planning Board would like to see included: