Agenda - 10-07-2008 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

!17 (b) As to relation to major roads and mass transit facilities, utilities and other facilities and services; The Board finds that there is insufficient documentation, submitted by the Applicant, indicating that the proposed development can be served through existing utility services. As a result the Board finds that the project cannot be served by exiting utilities. (c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments, or for amendments in those proposed; The Board finds that the Application amendment does not contain sufficient documentation indicating that the development will be under unified control guaranteeing the development of the property consistent with the proposed Application(s). (d) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the desirability of amendments; The Board finds that the plans proposed within the Application are not suitable for approval. (e) As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified in the particular case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other regulations would be met to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications; The Board finds that: i. The Application does not adhere to the applicable PD and/or general regulations, and ii. The Application does not contain desirable amendments, specifically the fourteen (14) proposed Design Solutions, that apply to this particular development as proposed by the Applicant. 3. That the members of the public who spoke at the several public hearings on the Application indicated opposition for the types of uses of the Property proposed within the Application and the potential negative environmental impacts that could result of the Application was approved. 4. That the types of uses of the Property proposed by the Application are not desirable to serve the residents of Orange County. 5. That the jobs that are anticipated to be created as a result of the proposed uses on the Property are "low wage" jobs and thus not the type contemplated to be created by development of the Buckhorn Economic Development District. 6. That there is property adjacent to Property at issue that is residential in nature, and the Application proposes uses that are far more intensive than adjacent land uses.