|
471
<br /> oacE couNTY
<br /> :., EQAED OF COC211.S510:,!STZS ;Actiea 1-1-,:encLA
<br /> Item :,:o. D-4
<br /> ACTION .-i:::;i7:7DA JTEM 1,BSTPACT
<br /> VOLTENC; DATE f/ /: -----
<br /> Subjct: 14e2: ',7euntain revels Arent refloe:;t for Class I.. ! pecial Use Pen it
<br /> --- j Public Hearing: yes -• '
<br /> Attach:Ala:it(s) : 7cro to Izard of Corr..iT . foam Cmtact: 'Fi-ck Carir lit"
<br /> stoners r.) 7 Flannilv 13eard.
<br /> lamrdril find.i_nr5 7V,P
<br /> PhOne D,IVE] 22-B181 1-..„. 347
<br /> —4't71i7a117--;7,'ira'5 lir:;)oo cundit1c115
<br /> Piani.nr, PePartmenf'S" :. nooserd conditions
<br /> PURPOSE: To receive the Pl.annirvz; EoFrds findin,75 on the Special Use Perr7it re7,uest
<br /> tf 3och- cduntain revolornent for a , eneral aviation airport.
<br /> NU..;u: The Planninr Doard has reviewed the evidence supplied by the applicant in
<br /> the subrittal request and held public hearin , July 8 and July 19, 1962.
<br /> The findini-s, developed Anos.t 16, 1932, will be orally presented by the
<br /> Flcnnin bard Chair at the hosed cf ConrissionerS P,u.7,ust 23, 1932 iiecular
<br /> eetinf.',..
<br /> The findims vary in several raspcts frm the Planninc repartrIents'
<br /> previous [Tath(irinE.,: of inforran. In particular the PlanninE, Board found: ..
<br /> 1, it is not clear in the racorl what areas are included in the develop-
<br /> rant orellosal, particularly the land of Leslie 'Ialton,
<br /> 2, The plans do not she:: approach-departure zone easerents, or oilier-
<br /> ship.
<br /> 3. M PAP standards are not ret because the applicant does not oun
<br /> all the clear zone or any of the apnroach zone.
<br /> I. There will be adverse affects on adjacent existing land uses,
<br /> particularly land value and aFricultural land use.
<br /> 5. There was no evidence that the applicant controls sufficent land
<br /> for' aperoach zones.
<br /> 6. 'fie ap,Aicant has not oroviied evidence of adequate fire protection.
<br /> 7. The".re are inconnatible land uses located within the approach zones.
<br /> a. The request will not pro:rete the publc health, safety and c,eneral
<br /> welfare. (see P 3 and 16 above).
<br /> 9. The reouest will not raintain or enhance adiaccnt property values.
<br /> (see NI above)
<br /> 10. The request is not in co:.N.iance with the general clans for the
<br /> physical developrent or," the County. (see Land I.'se Flan Coals
<br /> 2,5, and ( and Li, and VI above)
<br /> Baand on these, the P]ann1.n:' Board recors,:ends denial because it finds
<br /> the appli :.7t did not nett the conditions for api:roval on set forth in the
<br /> ,.
<br /> 'Lonin;': Oriijnance, (7 voting to deny, 1 oi,nose ) .
<br /> The Plann']nr- DepartFent recer,:rendation, on the other hand is for
<br /> an-;roval subject to conditions ;-s it feels the nnnlieant has substntially
<br /> rot the or%jinF-nce reaujonts- Ps to Planni.nE Bands !rinin.Ts, the
<br /> Pir,nrin Lena_rtront feels
<br />
|