Agenda - 07-07-1982- d1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CRAZZL CM-N--Y i BQa.2O 07 CM4ISSIO.IS'S Action Agenda ter Item. No. =MNG DATE September 7, 1982 I i Subject: Buck Mountain Development request for General Aviation Airport Class A Special Use Permit Dec nt: Planning Public FMaZ711g: g no AttBd=mnt(S): Planning Board's Finding-, lriformes Cont=c=t: Fred Luce Planning Board's imposed conditions; Planning Department's imposed conditions Phone h13rb=: 732-8181 ext. 346 PUTCSE: For the Board of County Commissioners to consider the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit for Buck Mountain Development's proposed general aviation airport. The Planning Board has reviewed the evidence supplied by the applicant in the submittal request and held public hearings July 8 and July 19, 1982. the Planning Board wade the following findings at its meeting on August _16, 1982, The chairperson presented the Board's finding at a'coatinnation.of the public hearir held on Aug4st 23, 1982. The findings of the Planning Board vary in several respects from those of-the Planning Staff. In particular the Planning Board found: 1. It is not clear in the record what areas are included in the development proposal, particularly the land of Leslie Walton. 2. The 91 lans do not show approach-departure zone easements, or ownership. I 3. All F;FA standards are not met because the applicant does not o%,n all the clear zone or any of the approach zone. 4. There! will be adverse affects on adjacent existing land uses, particularly land Ivalue and agricultural land use. S. 9herelwas no evidence that the applicant controls sufficient land for approach zones. 6. The applicant has not provided evidence of adequate fire protection. 7. There, a.-e incompatible land uses located within the approach zones. S. The request will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare. (see ;3 and 6 above). 9. The (quest will not maiatai,n or enhance adjacent property values. (see i#4 above) 10. The request is not in compliance with the general plans for the pizysica' development of the county. (see :and use Plan goals 2,5, and 7 and 4, and 7above) Based on these, the Planning Bcar3 recommends dental because it finds t-e applicant did not meet the conditions for approval as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. J7 voting to deny, 1 opposed) The Planning Lepa-_=nt ,ecomm:ndation, on the other hand, is for approval subject to conditions as it :eels the applicant has substantially met the Ordinance requirements. As to ?lancing 3oard's findings, the Planning Department f gels that: I !