Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_0875430 game? BECKHAtl: I've seen the plat earlier, but when I saw it, it was 50'. And tonight when I handed our the plat I answered Mrs. Crosswhite's question by saying it's 50'. I was corrected that it's 30', and I made a note here on my drawing. So I came to the meeting thinking it was 50' until I was informed otherwise. STEWART: This has the 30' in the same ink the map's done in. BECKHAM: That was brought to me last night at the planning board meeting. I did not check the measurements again on that plat. MILLS: What size is your package treatment facility? LEWIS: I think if I could swear Carroll in now and let him come to that, because he's the engineer who's working with the plant and the design of it. Carroll Williams sworn in. DAVENPORT: Let the record reflect that Mr. Lewis has called Carroll Williams. WILLIAMS: Carroll Williams, professional engineer. I live in Hickory. DAVENPORT: Do you have any information that is pertinent to the particular develop- ment complies with the regulations, the development standards that are set out in the ordinance? WILLIAMS: This is rather sudden. I didn't come prepared to get into this. DAVENPORT: Mr. Lewis, do you have any questions for this man? WILLIAMS: The space requirement will be very tight. If the board imposes 50', it will be almost impossible. Mr. Lewis and I talked at great length over that particular point, and he came up and he said I believe according to the ordinance the limit would be 30'. And I aid that would help us out considerably. For a package plant, now we could customize a plant, parhaps, and squeeze it in a smaller triangle. But for a package plant as you all have been referring to tonight, one that you bring in on a truck, it's going to be 12' wide and almost 20' long. by the time you reduce this triangle to 50' space on each side, you just: rhout got to that point. CROSSWHITE: This calls for at least 45'. How (not clear)? WILLIAMS: 45'? Well that'll give us 5 more feet. CROSSWHITE: On each side? WILLIAMS: It a,ould be very close because of the triangular shape. We'd have to crnrd up against the well lot, which would be all right. I mean I don't see anything wrong with that. It is just a matter of (not clear) We're dealing with a rectangle and we've got a triangular space to squeeze it in. You know, it's the old round hole and square peg, or some°:thing like that. That's the biggest problem. As for the plant itself, I don't see any real problem. It is just the space requirement. CROSSW!IITE: Would it be in order to make a motion to the effect (not clear) that we could approve it subject to (not clear) 45' set back? DAVENPORT: I think the drawings probably should reflect that. I can see in certain situations where you might want to continue, put a provision in an approval which antici- pates something in the future that you couldn't anticipate (not clear) If you can antici- pate it, you (not clear), you shouldn't condition it on that. Would you be willing to withdraw this and to resubmit the drawing showing best you can that you comply with the regulations? Are you willing to do that? I don't want to remove from you your option of going straight forward on this procee- ding. I'm just anticipating (not clear). LEWIS: I understand. The original 50' was proposed ordinance I was reading from, and that was the original drawing that we had, the preliminary sketch we had set in to. I :rent back to the ordinance and I just. I have trouble with open space and then buffer with plantings and trees and natural forage, trying to work the two together. And also I, if I could just have a minute, I want to take another look through some of (not clear). BECKHAM: This was the plant that I had earlier to check 50' and in my mind (not clear).