9/11/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP 11 1990 Booa< PA O,Jf up the problems associated with having 5,000 sq, ft. as a threshhold,.and staff said they thought this threshhold was being used as a growth management tool. The Board had seemed to be 1 receptive to the idea of having a flow. -type threshhold, and he contended that the square footage threshhold restricts small commercial developments. If the flow criteria was used, then those uses that are 10,000 sq, ft., but only have a sink and a toilet will not be penalized. Director Keating pointed out that the 5,000 sq, ft., is the standard that is in the Comp Plan right now; so, we don't really have the discretion to go to flow. He stressed that this is not designed to restrict growth; it is to make sure that utilities are extended to the areas where they are really needed. Mr. Smith did not see why the guy with 10,000 sq. ft. but just one bathroom should be the one to foot the bill to extend this infrastructure. Chairman Eggert pointed out that there is a cumulative effect to be considered. Attorney Collins addressed the question of whether we could change from a square footage to a gallonage flow. He noted that the Growth Management Act says the Comp Plan shall be broadly construed to accomplish its purposes; so, the question is what was the intent of the 5,000 sq. ft. threshhold. If it was related to some kind of health hazard from the size of the septic tank, then we could make the change, but Director Keating has said the square footage was not in there as a health measure but as a growth control measure. If the intent was to utilize the 5,000 sq. ft. as a threshhold on growth management utilities extension, then it would require a Plan amendment. Argument continued at length with Director Keating noting that 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface is a major site plan threshhold. Health Director Galanis advised that they do use flow figures in state codes, and he would suggest possibly a 34