HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_0880435
the issues, I feel I have accurately set out the standards to you.
I mentioned to you (not clear)
(1) Whether the petitioner needed a modification to construct the package facility.
(2) Decide if he meets the standards in 87.2.
Let me just modify that to say that the standards are more than 87.2 It may also
not included all these
include standards in 87.7, 87.10, and 87.11. I had inadvertently
standards.
The tests are laid out in 87.10 in terms of the scope of file hearing and the require-
ments which references the other sections. So just for your purposes.
With regard to procedure, let's try the same as the first hearing. Miss Beckham, if
would, go ahead and make the presentation on behalf of the staff.
you
Exhibit #1, a site plan for modification for the Hernnwood
BECKHAM: i am presenting
PRD.
This pian is being modified in order to add a wastewater treatment plant to the
the original that was approved last year.
property. That's the only change on this plat from
with a density of 2.4 units per acre.
year. There are 104 acres, 252 units, approved,
-
The proposal was originally approved (not clear)nitrofication fields with septic
(not clear) for this
tanks for waste disposal. Since the developers have reconsidered
change.
Your 87.7 hearing procedure (not clear) were given the authority in considering an
(not clear) reasonable .or
application for special use permit is (not clear) evaluation
Not nature and extentf theprPo ed
(not clear) conditions as to the location, clear),
nt
the property, 9 ports
special use and its relation to surrounding
and driveway, circulation system, screening buffering, (not clear) sewage treat-
find appropriate.
parking
ment, water supply, water safety, and other matters that you may deem or
DAVENPORT: Any questions for Miss Beckham?
HEDRICK: This Heronwoodplat is dated March 18, 1985 and revised May 15, 1985. You
I just
don't happen, by change, to have the original handy, do you? It's not necessary,
it iginally su::mitted when
answer was
wonderedplant?e way
was approved withld
acceptance oas. f thessewagettreatment
BECKHAM: That's true. The March drawing was a (not clear) that was since erased.
the point. That idea has
It was a proposal to add some single family lots at southernmost
been scratched from the drawing.
HEDRICK: So I can really erase out of mind this March 18th, 1985 date?
BECKHAM: Yes, that's correct. Although it's realty mislabeled. It's called modifi-
modification that Heronwood
cation #2, and that's not correct. This is the first official
had informal discussion by the board and
has come before you to hear them. Earlier we an
the lation ffroml50nto uthe a
ngs scaled anywhereoximate
as 100, fromu
fbecauseas towofe the buildither or not
fmyself
ormal hearing some of
to to building permits, they asked how much leeway
water, and the builders began come get
"approximate." So I came to the board, and the board made a
they had within the word
that time showing set backs ranging from 40 to 60 feet
decision that a drawing that at
acceptable. But that was basically a discussion from the staff and
from the water was
as to what "approximate" meant as to location of buildings. That
board of commissioners
and an official modification as it's defined here. So this is
was not an official hearing
truly modification #1.
HEDRICK: And just for information purposes for my own edification, which units are
in fact built at this time? Like B16, 17, & 18?
BECKHAM: I think it's these right here. Would it be B19 through 22?
HEDRICK: We might need to defer that question until he's sworn in.
Clerk to the Board swears the following witnesses to testify in this hearing:
Bill Hollan
C. D. Malone
Carroll Weber
James Jennings
Carroll Williams
Bert Walser
DAVENPORT: Any other questions of Miss Beckham at this time? Do you want to go ahead
as and present your opening statement and then go ahead with your case?
petitioner