Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Eggert said that when she first looked at the site <br />plan, the aerials and the initial landscaping plan, she felt it <br />should be approved, based on the criteria as we saw it. However, <br />after visiting the site, she has a real problem with it, <br />especially the addition of the pergola. When she saw where they <br />are wanting to put their buffering, she is doubtful that they can <br />adequately screen the greenhouse and pergola within the <br />constrained area provided for in the plans. <br />Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the proposed 2208 sq. <br />ft. greenhouse is 10 times the size of the 200 sq. ft. allowed <br />for greenhouses in the special exception use, and Director Boling <br />explained that new LDRs allow 5% of total site. In this case the <br />greenhouse itself would fall under that 50. If you add <br />everything else into it, it comes out to approximately 2200 sq. <br />ft. and exceeds the new land use regulations by approximately 400 <br />square feet. <br />Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if <br />anyone wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Robin Lloyd, attorney representing Dr. 8 Mrs. Donald Ames, <br />presented the following arguments in favor of special exception <br />use approval: <br />1) Under the new LDRs the average house is 2000 square feet,.but <br />this house is substantially larger than the average house and <br />therefore.the greenhouse is substantially larger. <br />2) The pergola did not go under the restrictions of the property <br />because it is a draining type building. It is not something <br />that is a finished building with a roof that is going to take <br />up a point of saturation. As he understands it, the rain <br />water goes right down through a pergola. They are withing <br />the working area for the greenhouse requirements. - <br />3) A greenhouse is a quiet type of special use, not like a <br />kennel or something like that. <br />