HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_0897 (2)452
DAVENPORT! Th- section provides that a final approval may be required, but I think it contem-
plates that they may not have a final approval, but an application pending approval is appropriate.
So I think that you would have tr find that an application was pending, and it o�ould seem to be
likely (not clear) due process. That would be my interpretation of that; Mr. Walser will probably
kill me for that one.
Next, that any above -ground sewage treatment facility would be buffered. Let me comment that
you have direct testimony saying that it would. I think it preferable that it be added on the plat.
I don't see any language on the plat.
WALSER: The plat does say that all the requirements (not clear).
DAVENPORT: I'm sorry then, that's what I was looking for. O.K. They're using a blanket
statement. I think you do have some testimony to that as well. And you can put that in your
findings of fact on that particular point.
Then, let me go with one more statement here, one more test. All right. From 87.11, that,
before I get to 87.11, all the relevant tests from 87.2 have been complied with, which, I don't
believe there are any, but use your own judgment on that. I'm not going to try to interpret the
ordinance for you; I'm just trying to highlight what I saw as pertinent, and you may disagree with
that. I don't mean to in any way shape your viewpoint on it.
In 87.11, that adequate precautions have been taken to protect the water quality in Lake
Norman.
So if you find all those things, if you find that all those things have been met, then I would
suggest that the development standards have been satisfactorily met.
Then you could proceed to the second questions, which would be, Does any part of the develop-
ment propose a nuisance to nearby residential area? And if you should find that it does, then I
would (not clear) deny the permit on that basis.
If you find that you could deny the permit, I'm also going to suggest to you that you can, if
by writing conditions, you could essentially ameliorate the objection, providing there is discretion
in it. For instance, if you find that the water quality in Lake Norman would be affected detrimen-
tally, and by writing conditions into it you could essentially remove that objection in your own
mind, then you could issue what would be a conditional provision, that is, approve it subject to
conditions.
There are number of (I don't want to make this more complicated than it is.)
CROSSWHITE: What I would like to suggest is that you slow down a little bit. As late as it
is, I'm thinking sort of slow.
DAVENPORT: I'm thinking slowly too, and also (not clear)
There are a number of areas where you can essentially put conditions. There are conditional
areas spelled out in the ordinance, and I'll just refer you to them. They are 87.7, things dealing
with the timing of the development and sewage treatment, screening buffer. So I guess that I'm
suggesting to you that you think it through in your own mind and decide what, if anything, you feel
that the petitioner has not demonstrated to you, that he has proven. If you have a problem with
that, I think you should ask another (not clear), Is there something that you're satisfied he can do
by way of a condition that you would then feel like he satisfied. And if so, then I would suggest
you probably might want to consider bringing it forward as a condition of the SRP (sic)
modification.
On the other hand, if you find that there's nothing that can be done conditionally, then I
think it appropriate to find that the project not be granted, and that should be left at the,
proceed under the original (not clear).
Am I being fairly clear?
Is there a particular thing you want me to go back over?
So you've got one basic decision, to decide whether you ought to decide, and then after you get
by that one, then let's get into the hard (not clear) and decide whether the two standards are met,
this is whether the development standards have been satisfied, and, secondly, whether this nuisance
has been created to residential area.
In deciding the first, if you decide that the development standards have not been met, I think
it would be appropriate to identify what standards you are having a problem with.
HEDRICK: Are there any other questions that we need to ask in this public hearing before we
consider adjourninD back to regular session?
Is there any need to protect the ability to get back into the public hearing if we later find
in the next fcw minutes that we need to come back in?
WALSER: We'll be willing to waive any objections to a temporary adjournment.
Davenport: Let the record reflect that bath parties waive any objections to the form of ,
proceedings with regard to going back into the pubic hearing after it has been closed.