RESULTS
TUESDAY,
BOARD MEMBERS
Dee Gatliff
John Getter
Duane Laible,
Vice Chair
Angie Heath Younce, Chair
Diana Morton, Secretary
I.
CALL TO ORDER
II.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
III.
PROCEDURES/CONDUCT
A.
Conformance with
the
B.
Meeting
Guidelines
C.
Liaison/County
Staff Business None
D.
Approval of
Agenda Posted, Including Any Deletions or Corrections
E.
Approval of
Minutes of
F.
Discussion:
Ancillary uses at commercial properties On agenda for
TAB Chairs meeting
G.
Discussion &
possible action: Illegal signs posted on light poles and power boxes in Spring
Valley On agenda for TAB Chairs meeting
H.
Discuss the
reporting of Town Board action to the Board of County Commissioners
Update and clarification from Mike Shannon, accepted and thanked
by TAB
I.
Presentation and
discussion regarding Cooperative Management Area termination
·
Airport
staff briefed and began by confirming
·
Staff
said all concerns are noise-related and are not related to any possible crash
or aircraft emergency scenario beyond the limits of the airport runway
protection zone
·
Explaining
the noise contour map, staff noted the contours are shrinking and will continue
to do so due to improved aircraft technology and performance
·
Despite
these continuing improvements, staff reiterated opposition to any residential
development in contour zones of AE-60 or higher, and opposed all but extremely
limited residential development outside certain AE-60 zones
·
Asked
by a resident of the AE-60 zone if there have been any noise complaints, the
staff said there had been none.
·
Asked
by a resident who was the decision-maker on these areas,
·
TAB
members challenged the assumptions that limits on residential development “make
sense” in AE-60 zone land and that outside the zone.
·
Staff
stated those who have invested in land deed restricted to other than
residential development deserve to be protected as a change might affect property
values. TAB stated the existing residents of the AE-60 zone and those outside
of it also deserve protection of the residential nature of their local
neighborhood. Staff responded that those areas should not have been developed
as residential and that such development happened in the past against their
recommendations.
·
TAB
asked if it would not be possible to update the building code for residential
construction in the zones to incorporate the same noise attenuation in
structures as is required in transient lodging, resorts, auditoriums and other
permitted uses. Staff agreed it could, but responded residents would still be
troubled by noise in their yards or walking outdoors.
·
Referring
to resident-led efforts to support development of hiking and equestrian trails
on currently undeveloped parcels, staff reported the county is not required to
sell the land for any development
·
Asked
what the procedure would be to seek residential development in any former
Note -- Item 1C below
involves a large residential development within the
IV. COMMENTS
BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC –
Resident requested that any action taken by the TAB
Chairs or other bodies to further limit unofficial sign placement allow for the
use of Neighborhood Watch signs, as appropriate
V. TOWN BOARD INPUT
Dee Gatliff expressed concerns about
the safety and prudence of unlicensed food vendors selling products to students
outside
VI. PLANNING & ZONING
Possible
action to be taken on the following applications:
. None
VIII. Set
next meeting date –
IX. Adjournment
ATTACHMENT A
HELD OVER FROM
1A. UC-0159-12
– FISHER HOLDING COMPANY, LLC:
USE
PERMIT to allow outside
storage/display of rental trucks and trailers visible from public streets and a
residential development in conjunction with an existing convenience store and
car wash on 1.7 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone. Generally located on the
east side of
Denied 4-0 per staff recommendations
This item had been held over and TAB
advised the applicant to meet with the planning staff in an attempt to create
modifications leading to a recommendation of approval. The applicant did not do
so and so offered no changes to the item. Also, the applicant showed pictures
of a “carnival” held on the property the preceding weekend and joked that he
probably needed a permit for that, too, but did not check.
1B. WS-0163-12
– AAA
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for full off-site improvements in conjunction with a future commercial development on 4.1 acres
in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone. Generally located on the northeast corner of
Denied 4-0 per staff recommendations
1C. ZC-0146-12
–
Approved 4-0 per staff recommendation
(see notes above regarding
1. UC-0177-12 –
USE PERMIT for a communication tower.
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce the separation
between communication towers.
DESIGN REVIEW for a communication tower within a commercial complex on 0.1 acres in
a C-P (Office & Professional) Zone. Generally located 350 feet west of
Denied 4-0 per staff recommendations. TAB repeated
oft-expressed serious concerns with proposals to significantly reduce
separation
2. UC-0187-12 –
USE
PERMITS for the following: 1) reduce the separation between a
proposed convenience store and an existing residential use; 2) reduce the separation between a
proposed check cashing service and an existing residential use; 3) reduce the separation between a
proposed check cashing service and another check cashing service; and 4) allow a check cashing service less than 1,500 square feet in size
within an existing retail building on 1.0 acre in a C-2 (General Commercial)
Zone. Generally
located on the east side of
Denied 4-0 per staff
recommendations. TAB
repeated concerns about requests for significant separation reductions
The
statements, opinions and observations expressed in this document are solely
those of the author. The opinions stated
in this document are not the official position of any government board,
organization or group. The project
descriptions, ordinances board/commission results are reproduced from publicly
available
John
Getter