My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (01)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (01)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
7/28/2015 2:03:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
7/28/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
300
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
16 "Assuming a local government finds compliance, or feasibility of compliance, <br />17 with all approval criteria during a first stage (where statutory notice and <br />18 public hearing requirements are observed), it is entirely appropriate to impose <br />19 conditions of approval to assure those criteria are met and defer responsibility <br />20 for assuring compliance with those conditions to planning and engineering <br />21 staff as part of a second stage. * * * <br />22 "Where the evidence presented during the first stage approval proceedings <br />23 raises questions concerning whether a particular approval criterion is satisfied, <br />24 a local government essentially has three options potentially available. First, it <br />25 may find that although the evidence is conflicting, the evidence nevertheless <br />26 is sufficient to support a finding that the standard is satisfied or that feasible <br />27 solutions to identified problems exist, and impose conditions if necessary. <br />28 Second, if the local government determines there is insufficient evidence to <br />29 determine the feasibility of compliance with the standard, it could on that <br />30 basis deny the application. Third, * * * instead of finding that the standard is <br />31 not met, it may defer a determination concerning compliance with the <br />32 standard to the second stage. In selecting this third option, the local <br />33 government is not finding all applicable approval standards are complied <br />Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.