Ord 1312 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(A) Whether the amount of land included within the boundaries of the proposed urban development is appropriate, and (B) Whether urban development is limited by the air, water, energy and land resources at or available to the proposed site, and whether urban development at the proposed site will adversely affect the air, water, energy and land resources of the surrounding area. The Board finds that the long-term environmental, economic, social and energy(ESEE) consequences resulting from locating the proposed golf resort development on the subject property will not be significantly more adverse than locating the development on other undeveloped rural lands. The Board notes that this rule does not create a particularly high standard,but simply requires a determination that the ESEE consequences resulting from the proposed development "are not significantly more adverse" than would result from the development being placed on other undeveloped rural lands. The proposed commercial and residential components of the resort must be built in conjunction with the existing golf course. The proposed development is completely dependent on being located on the proposed site for which the ESEE consequences have already been reviewed and approved by the county. The previous findings addressed the impacts of the proposed resort and concluded that they would be no greater than the impacts of any other resort and are outweighed by the benefits of the development. The Board finds that the long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from locating the resort on the subject property will not be significantly more adverse than locating the resort on other undeveloped rural lands. The Board finds that the amount of land being included in the proposed development is appropriate because it is consistent with the amount of land previously approved for this use by the county. The Board finds that the site is not limited by soil, air, water or energy capacity nor will the proposed use adversely affect air, water, energy and land resources of the surrounding area. (c) That Goal 2, Part II(c)(4) is met by showing that the proposed urban uses are compatible with adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts considering: (A) Whether urban development at the proposed site detracts from the ability of existing cities and service districts to provide services; and (B) Whether the potential for continued resource management of land at present levels surrounding and nearby the site proposed for urban development is assured. The Board finds that the proposed resort will be compatible with adjacent uses, or will be rendered compatible through measures designed to reduce any adverse impacts. The proposed resort will only require approximately 65 acres of the 464-acre property. As indicated on the applicant's proposed site plan, the resort will be located toward the center of the parcel, away from surrounding adjacent uses, which will create buffers that will minimize external impacts. The Board is also imposing conditions of approval that will reduce potential impacts. Regarding potential impacts from traffic, access to the site will be from Gates Hill Road and North Fork Road. As concluded in the TIS prepared by DKS Associates, the impacts of the project are relatively small, proposed Highway 22/North Fork Road intersection improvement mitigates the proportional impacts of the project and the intersection experiences better operation with the project than it would without the project. TIS, p. 25. The Board finds that with the proposed improvements, any impacts caused by the project will be mitigated and all performance standards are met. -12-