12.10.25 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

47 Draft 1 are access and maintenance agreements in place. The applicant does have a legal existing 2 right to cross over Hi Mar Lane and Dodson Knoll Road. So, there's no doubt that they do 3 have access to Dairyland Road just by nature of those agreements. And again, I can close, 1 4 have those loaded on the screen. I thought that they were going to be provided to you all 5 electronically, but I can show those to you in a, in a few minutes. So, with respect to frontage 6 on a state-maintained road, the LIDO defines does not define the term direct frontage, but it 7 does define the term frontage lot line as the distance measured along the designated front lot 8 line or. or private right of way or easement as determined that by the planning director, which 9 affords vehicular access to the property. There is no doubt that there are private rights of way 10 or easements that serve the subject property, which provide vehicular access to Dairyland 11 Road,which is a public state-maintained road. So,we would argue that that criteria has been 12 met based on the nearest applicable definition in the UDO for direct frontage. Obviously, 1 13 think there's no doubt that there is a legal right of access over Dodson Knoll Road and Hi Mar 14 Lane, so that the access requirement is certainly met. We would also argue that the frontage 15 requirement has been met based on the plain language of the UDO's definitions. So adequate 16 access. Again, these are things that you've heard from Ms. Cheeves. Again, all client pickup 17 and drop off will be on site. You've heard that both from Dr. Dennis and from Ms. Cheeves 18 the use will be adequately screened from adjacent properties. I think you've heard from staff 19 during the staff presentation that there is quite a bit of existing natural vegetation that likely 20 satisfies the kind of the, the, the variable vegetation requirement of the UDO. However, the 21 applicant has agreed to provide additional Type B buffering you know, in conjunction with 22 county staff if that's something that, that the Board feels is necessary. Again, we would ask 23 that that be imposed by condition and that they'd be allowed to work with county staff to, to 24 choose or select plantings that meet the county's the county has a list of appropriate plantings 25 that we select things from that list. Again, there's a requirement that they provide 75 square 26 feet of outdoor space for every client in care based on the acreage of the site, there is 27 approximately 1,500 square feet of outdoor space per maximum client in care. Again right 28 now the applicant operates with a maximum of 20. 1 think you've heard testimony that there 29 has never been, or maybe at least very seldom is there 20, 20 clients on the site throughout 30 the day, ever. And certainly not ever at once. So clearly, they meet that criteria. Again Ms. 31 Bronson, I think you asked about fencing. We've already talked about that. 32 33 Beth Bronson: And when you're talking about the amount of space per person, you are referencing the 34 fenced-in area? 35 36 Kevin Hornik: That's the entire the entire site. Certainly, within the fenced in area, there is more, well, well 37 more than 70, 75 square feet per client at any given time. 38 39 Beth Bronson: And then the one that you are referencing though, the 1,000 square feet per person that's in 40 reference to the entire 30 acres. 41 42 Kevin Hornik: That's in reference to the entire 30 acres. Because we are applying for the special-use permit 43 for the entire 9.67 square. 44 45 Beth Bronson: The entire parcel is not fenced in. Is that correct? 46 47 Kevin Hornik: That's correct. But the vast majority of the site is fenced in. Is that? 48 49 Nora Dennis: Well, but, so one, there's one acre that's fenced in, but certainly 1 acre divided by ten people 50 makes more. 47