Laserfiche WebLink
apartments going in on the subject property rather than <br />mobile homes. <br />ON MOTION BY Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani- <br />mously closed the public hearing. <br />Discussion followed about adopting the ordinance, and <br />Attorney Brandenburg suggested that a copy of the environ- <br />mentally sensitive survey be attached to the Ordinance and <br />that it be made clear that area only can be developed at the <br />Comprehensive Plan maximum, - one dwelling per acre. <br />Commissioner Fletcher next inquired about provisions <br />for water ,and sewer and wished to know why this was con- <br />sidered after grantinga rezoning rather than before. <br />Chairman Scurlock felt the problem is that we really <br />don't have figures to base it on since the granting of the <br />rezoning does not necessarily mean the property will be <br />developed at maximum capacity. <br />Mr. King stated that there will be consideration of the <br />maximum project capacity of development and whether there <br />will be water and sewer available to handle that impact and <br />whether septic tanks can handle it, etc., but he did not <br />feel it is possible to get down to the site plan issues in <br />great detail until the time of site plan submission. <br />Commissioner Fletcher believed this is what the adjoin- <br />ing property owners really would like to know. He commented <br />that we hold a public hearing to determine.land use so the <br />adjoining property owners can get a sense -of what their new <br />neighbors will be, and, in his view, the method in which we <br />are going about this is backwards. He continued that by <br />granting the proposed rezoning, we would be granting the <br />developer the right to build 6 units per acre even though we <br />77 <br />1 1 • <br />51 PAGE"I <br />