7_10_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8.7.24 Patrick Mallett: That's right. They see it and are able to comment or not comment on any given project. 1601 For this specific case. In many cases they don't chime in. 1602 1603 Beth Bronson: I want to say they had no comment but let me just double check that real quick. 1604 1605 Patrick Mallett: That's my recollection. 1606 1607 Beth Bronson: I do not actually see them on here. 1608 1609 Patrick Mallett: So, they get the information, they attend the meeting, but they may not put in a comment. 1610 Or provide a memo. Most of the other departments, we ask for a specific memo because 1611 they have a very technical application and integration into the request. 1612 1613 Beth Bronson: And so when this was originally provided, I want to say that if there was proposals going 1614 back as far, and this is probably for the applicant, but proposals going back as far as 2020 1615 and 2019, was the Economic Development Department ever consulted or did you guys 1616 ever approach them about how to work with the County on creating this type of co-op 1617 environment so far away from municipality and doing that in rural county development 1618 land? 1619 1620 Scott Radway: I think all of us working on the project and H4D members and 2T members realize the 1621 complexity of the overlaying of these many issues that are here. The proposal itself, 1622 which is, there's some statements that have been made that aren't accurate. The 1623 proposal itself is completely a residential development. It does not have any non-1624 residential components. 1625 1626 Statler Gilfillen: I'm sorry. That differs with what you said about the medical facilities and other things that 1627 will be there. When you say it's only residential, but you've been telling me the opposite 1628 of that, so that's why you're getting that response. 1629 1630 Scott Radway: Well, I think that's incorrect. The medical piece which is state law as Perdita talked 1631 through and gone through and to this item that's No. 8 is that when we start, as applicants 1632 doing due diligence on property and uses, we started going in detail to what did it mean to 1633 be in X, Y, or Z district. What did it mean to be a flexible development within the existing 1634 zoning? What did it mean to be a residential conditional district? This application could 1635 have been brought forward in almost all or any of those districts, and it could have in fact 1636 been brought forward without requiring any rezoning component to it. It could have been 1637 brought forward in the agricultural residential district with one exception, which is the fact 1638 that there are multi-family dwelling units in this rather than all single family or all single 1639 family and duplex, and that's an important distinction, but the assisted living or the family 1640 care centers are governed by state statute. Part of the activity, it was referenced that 1641 there was a lot of back and forth between the applicant and the County. I took that to 1642 imply that somehow there was collusion someplace in there, but, in fact, when we tried to 1643 find that out and did some research, and the County did that research, looked at it and 1644 discovered that the state statutes and the definitions in the UDO were not matched. So, a 1645 simple piece in this is get the right definition in the right place, that's technical. The other 1646 part is should it be here, and that's obviously a bigger discussion, but state statute 1647 establishes, as was said, that all districts that permit single family or residential 1648 development, actually in any form, can have what is now called a family care home, 1649 defined correctly according to the state statute, which can have a maximum of six people, 1650