|
DRAFT 468
<br /> 444 question is if a proposed activity falls into those general uses and is similar to the uses listed, much like the current
<br /> 445 County's Table of Permitted Uses, it would be permitted. You could have an activity consistent with research and
<br /> 446 development activities that, not to make a judgement call, you may not necessarily find viable as other similar uses
<br /> 447 (other research and development activities) but it could be developed within the project because you're allowing
<br /> 448 research and development. That goes directly to your example that there may be research and development
<br /> 449 activities that you are not comfortable with. We wouldn't have the authority to say no you can't do that as there is no
<br /> 450 specific prohibition. David is correct there would be building and other regulatory standards that the applicant would
<br /> 451 have to comply with, but if they meet the standard proposed by the applicant and approved by the County
<br /> 452 Commissioners staff would not have the authority to prohibit it (proposed land use) if it falls in the approved use
<br /> 453 category. That would be the same answer with the enforcement of the current Table of Permitted Uses.
<br /> 454
<br /> 455 If you are, for example, proposing a rec amenity and while you as an adjacent property may not like the actual
<br /> 456 amenity someone has chosen to develop, if the proposed use qualifies as an allowable use and meets applicable
<br /> 457 development requirements and criteria then it gets developed, it's permitted as an allowable rec amenity. The
<br /> 458 Planning Board and County Commissioners wouldn't have any ability to, I hate to use the word challenge but I'm
<br /> 459 going to, whether or not the validity of that land use is consistent with the approval. I will also say that every decision
<br /> 460 that the County makes as it relates to the enforcement of the UDO and as it relates to the enforcement of the
<br /> 461 conditions imposed on this project, is subject to appeal to the Orange County Board of Adjustment. That's not a
<br /> 462 great answer but that is the answer, part of the answer I'm going to give you to try to address your question.
<br /> 463
<br /> 464 Ronald Sieber: Hello, this is Ronald Sieber again and first of all, I'm just trying to process the change from 800 cars
<br /> 465 per day traveling on our road, Davis Road, to 200 per hour. I mean that is a stunning, I repeat that is a stunning
<br /> 466 change in numbers. I want the Planning Board to think about that, you work for us. This is unreal that you are
<br /> 467 allowing this development to go forward. I just can't believe it so therefore, I've prepared several and a couple of
<br /> 468 questions and I'd like to just run them by you and you don't need to respond, I would just like you to hear, record and
<br /> 469 react to it at a later date.
<br /> 470
<br /> 471 David Blankfard: Ronald, before you start, can you tell us if you received a letter from the Planning ...
<br /> 472
<br /> 473 Ronald Sieber: No, I receive no letter because I live, as Mr. Marshall would point out, 1.7 miles away from this
<br /> 474 development so therefore, I'm not relevant, so you know.
<br /> 475
<br /> 476 David Blankfard: I didn't say that but thank you.
<br /> 477
<br /> 478 "Planning Board Member Melissa Poole left the meeting"
<br /> 479
<br /> 480 Ronald Sieber: Yes, ok, thank you Mr. Blankfard and I'll proceed. First of all, I just want to point out that the
<br /> 481 developer does not seem to supportive of electrical charging stations. We're at a point, and I've followed the
<br /> 482 automotive industry because that's what I write about, I'm a professional writer. We're at a point where fleets, I'm
<br /> 483 talking about fleets of trucks are developing electrical charging stations to charge and support their electrical fleets. 1
<br /> 484 think it's time that developers, especially those who are putting warehouses up for such facilities to be used by fleets
<br /> 485 of trucks. They need to start providing the infrastructure for these folks to attract them as businesses. I think that
<br /> 486 also, I'd like to point out, that on amendment 8 and I know this goes back to 8 and we're talking about 10 but 8 is
<br /> 487 involved with 10. Four members of the Planning Board voted against amendment 8 and I do appreciate their
<br /> 488 support, however, I just want to put it on, put the remainder on notice that that property that you want to rezone from
<br /> 489 rural to something else is along a road that is inhabited by 100s of people, some of them are legacy businesses,
<br /> 490 some of them are farms, and many of them are residents who moved out here without any knowledge, like myself,
<br /> 491 without any knowledge of some sort of planned economic development section that is going to change our lives
<br /> 492 forever. We did not move out here to be next to an industrial park, we moved out here to be in a rural neighborhood
<br /> 493 and that's what we want to preserve and I think it's high time we change that development or designation and I'm
<br /> 494 going to work every way I can to change that if we can have a chance to do that but apparently it seems like the dice
<br /> 495 and the deck is stacked against us. Nevertheless, we as a community are going to fight this every way we can. We
<br /> 496 are opposed to this proposed change. Having said all that this community is not opposed to intelligent development.
<br /> 497 That's in sync, that somehow aligns with some of the goals of this community,which is to have a nice place to live, a
<br /> 498 Rural Buffer. Now Steve Kaufmann had an intention to build a school and he's going to get that zoning returned to
<br /> 499 him so he can do that. That's an example of the kind of development that we can support as a community not a
<br />
|