Laserfiche WebLink
FINAL ARGUMENTS <br /> THE APPLICANT <br /> Attorney Segal asserted that clear and convincing, competent substantial evidence has <br /> been presented and demonstrates that the Applicant has met the special exception use <br /> requirements, and that there will be no safety , health, and welfare issues . He declared that the <br /> proposed site is : ( 1 ) appropriate for the subject facility; (2 ) compatible with the surrounding land <br /> uses ; (3 ) would have no adverse effect outside of its own walls ; and (4) would promote orderly <br /> development. He thereafter presented the Applicant ' s request that the Board grant the special <br /> exception use . <br /> THEINTERVENOR <br /> Attorney Poliakoff asked the Commissioners to weigh the evidence , find that the <br /> Applicant has failed to satisfy the burden of proof, and deny the A- 1 Walee special exception use <br /> application. <br /> There being no further speakers, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. <br /> MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Flescher, <br /> SECONDED by Vice Chairman Wheeler, to DENY <br /> staff s recommendation . <br /> Attorney Polackwich, responding to Commissioner Davis ' s inquiry , provided guidance <br /> on the verbiage that should be contained in the Motion . <br /> Chairman Solari stated he had a problem with some, but not all , of the criteria, and asked <br /> if the denial could be based on one or more findings . <br /> March 22 , 2011 29 <br />