Agenda - 08-23-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

411 reapplying after denial , However, during our process, the Staff and County Attorney indicated disagreement with the Planning Board's interpretation , And, therefore we went on with the public hearing. The purpose of this motion is merely for the Planning Board to re-affilu its position to you. This is the secmnd'industrial special use permit we've had; the rest of them have been Planned Development. Special Use Permits. And we've tried througk- since the enactment of our Ordinance to refine the Planning Board's process in making Findings of Fact that are useful to the Board in suc|a that the Planning Board can also handle, We, ah, therefore, did it a little bit differently this time, again. What we did was rearrange the Ordinance essentially to take, first of all , the specific requirements that are required of all special use applicants; we then took the specific requirements that are required just for general aviation airports; we then considered the three general standards at the conclusion of our findings. The first two types of findings are those for which the applicant had the the burden of proving compliance w1th. You will find, I believe, that the Planning Board's avocation of findings, particularly when they find that the applicant did not meet its burden was because either there was lack of evdenu or failure on the part of the applicant to rebut conflicting testimony. Our findings are different from other findings that we've done in the past in that, before we've acted on Staff's findings of fact and in this instance we made our own findings and did not take into account what the Staff had found; however, the Staff was there to advise us if necessary. With the Board's permission, I 'll begin our findinVs, 1. North point scale and date. We found this contained within the ay?li^7.'H-o. 2. The extent of area to be developed, The Planning Board found the: ic is not clear in the record what areas are included in the development Pn'pus�l ^ particularly, the land of Mr. Leslie Walton, This is found on page 8` lines 12-14 of the draft minutes of the July 8th meeting, ' The vote woo O-2 on that motion. The Board seemed some concerned that there was mentioned in the proposal that Mr. Walton's land could be used if necessary, but yet was not specifically included in the proposal. 3. Location wideths of all easements and rights-of way within or adjacent to the sitp. The Board found the plans as submitted as deficient because they did not show the approach/departure zone easement or rights-of-way. The vote was four in favor, one against and three absentions. 4. Location of all existing or proposedand structures on the s1te. The Board found that that's contained within the application. 5. Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on the flood maps or soil maps. The Board found that that was contained within the application' 6' Location of all water courses on the sites including direction of flow. This was also contained within the application. 7. Existing topography at a contour interval of 5' based on mean level datvm. This was also contained within the application. 8. Proposed or existing fencing, screening, gntes, parking, service and storage areas. This is contained in the application. 9. Access to site including site distances on all roads used for access. Thi~ also is contained in the application, 10. Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. While the Planning Board eventually found that this item was contained in the application, 1' e was some disagreement because within the applicant's pro- ! pnel th :y sut, ed pictures to us which did not indicate dimensions; further- , more, there was later testimony by Hr. Hazzard that lacked some knowledge of exact dimensions proposed for all structures, lL Names and addresses of owners and applicants. This is contained in the application,