OCPB Minutes 011018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 2/7/18 that is the quasi-judicial component of this hearing. It is our professional opinion that the array as proposed will not 166 create a dire set of consequences for surrounding property owners and will not have a negative impact on the public, 167 safety or welfare. With respect to the value of contiguous property, within the agenda packet there is a report 168 regarding the impact of the facility on contiguousproperty values. That is enabling staff to make a recommendation 169 thatthe use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. And finally, the location and character of the 170 use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area. Staff is basing that finding on the 171 application package, the staff abstract, the documented evidence and the various attachments, specifically 172 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, Attachment 5, and the Neighborhood Information Meeting. Staffrecommendsapproval 173 of the Special Use Permit. 174 175 Patrick Mallett reminded the board of the process of voting and that the only condition that changed was Condition 176 Number 1, which involved changing the language from a conservation easement to a natural buffer area. 177 178 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve staff recommendationsas detailed on Pages154-159of the abstract packet.179 Seconded by Hunter Spitzer.180 VOTE:Unanimous181 182 MOTION by Kim Piraccito find that, with respect to Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the use will maintain or promote the public 183 health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as 184 submitted.Seconded by David Blankfard.185 VOTE:Unanimous186 187 MOTION by Randy Marshall tofind that with respect to Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) The use will maintain or enhance the 188 value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or 189 enhance the value of contiguous property).Seconded by Alexander Gregory.190 VOTE:Unanimous191 192 MOTION by Randy Marshall tofind that with respect to Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c), the location and character of the use, 193 if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use 194 is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the 195 Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by David 196 Blankfard.197 VOTE:Unanimous198 199 MOTION by Hunter Spitzer to approve the Special Use Permit with the imposition of the mutually agreed upon 200 conditionsas listed on Pages162-163. Seconded by Tony Blake.201 VOTE:Unanimous202 203 204 AGENDA ITEM 9:MASTERPLANDEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION–SETTLER’S POINT -To review comments 205 made at the November 14 quarterly public hearing, proposed revisions to conditions as a 206 result of comments, and to make a recommendation on the proposed revisions concerning an 207 application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning). The proposed 208 project encompasses approximately 195 acres in the Hillsborough Economic Development 209 District (EDD) south of Interstate 40 on both sides of Old Highway 86. The public hearing for 210 this item has been extended until January 23, 2018.211 212 Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, and Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor213 214 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstractmaterials and that the purpose this evening is to finalize review of specific 215 conditions as requested by the county commissioners concerning the Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning 216 application for Settler’s Point. As a general reminder, this project involves two districts. District 1 involves two parcels 217 covering 148 acres. District 2 is approximately 47 acres involving 8 parcels of property. This review is a continuation 218 of the December 18, 2017, meeting. He reviewed that the applicant is proposing to not disturb the buffer in District 1 219 but to reduce the width of the buffer in District 2 from 100 feet to 50 feet as described on Pages 228 and 229 in the 220