Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_0896451 You may want to do that no�n or you may want to continue it and let me draw up something, a form more or less, that you can work your way through. If you'd rather do that. Am I giving you clear assistance? HEDRICK: The form you're talking about.. What are we talking about there? DAVENPORT: Just a checklist, one you should address first of all whether Heronwood needs, in fact, to modify their PRD ordinance, was issue #1. Issue #2 is assuming they needed to, or if you find they did need to, and secondly, whether the two standards, whether they've met the development standards set out in the ordinance. Arid I've listed for you four of those, five of those, that I thought that were particularly relevant. Then secondly whether the proposed modification would create a nuisance to nearby residential area. I don't think there's any evidence on the second one. HEDRICK: For purpose of clarification to me, when you say whether they need to modify the PRD, if I have heard the presentations correctly, it is not as much a "need to" as a "want to," based on their feelings that it is a better, but defined "need," I guess I'm concerned with, the definition of "need" in this case would be how? DAVENPORT: "Need" being that they're making a substantial modification under the 87.10 of your ordinance, that is they're making a modification to the special use permit, and that it's substan- tial enough to follow (not clear) within that provision, and thereby they're required to do that. I assume (not clear) . . . . HEDRICK: I was misinterpreting from the other standpoint that they need to modify their request, based on their ability to proceed with the septic tank. DAVENPORT: The practical layman's term, that is, do they even need to be here? Is what they're doing just simply something that is not a (not clear) . STEWART: In a way, I'm misled on the whole thing. To be perfectly blunt, as I understood it, this was a public hearing for a modification to a special use permit. How do these other things get involved, these other points that you raised? DAVENPORT: No. that isn't, the question of whether they can, in fact, modify the special use permit is governed by your own ordinance. And your ordinance says that they can modify it if they can prove to you, and I don't know exactly what the test is, they can provide to you that STEWART: Since we're going to have to make a decision, I'd like to what what those are. DAVENPORT: If they can prove to you two things. I'm just going to (not clear) of the evidence. One, that all the development standards have been satisfactorily met. If they can prove to you that they have met the development standards in the ordinance. The development standards are, one, that the development, as modified, will be capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability. I might also add by additional tests, that it's more so with a package plait that it was before. Two, that WALSER: To interrupt your last statement here, I don't think there's anything in your ordinance that says it has to be more so. I just think it has to meet tyre standards, I don't think we have a burden to prove that it is more so than another one. DAVENPORT: I think I appreciate the technical point, and I'm not so sure that I appreciate the, all right, disregard that statement being "more so." Let me, wait a second, please. O.K. Disregard that statement, just stick on the first statement which I'm going to repeat for you. All right. That it meet, the first test is whether the evidenca presented at the hearing establishes that the development standards have been satisfactorily met. And then, the development standrs are all of nd ut I'm ing pointtaout the ones that �seem a to be relevant ndards on pges 5Bou5can aJ use your own 0 of your judgment as to whether syou oo think others may be relevant. 1. The total development shall be capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability. STEWART: Would you state the numbers of those, please? DAVENPORT: Yes. 87.2(a). (b) I'm going to interpret this a bit. That yard set -back lot sizes, type of drawing in front of you (not clear) use restrictions, as related to the modification are appropriate. STEWART: What number is that? DAVENPORT: That would be (b). (e) That the plans for the sewer system have been reviewed by the appropriate state agency. ' STEWART: If that were not the case, they wouldn't 'nave a permit, •sculd they?