RZ-07-00008 Dunford FDP Ordinance 2010-013

Home Browse Search

the school district. The applicant agreed to comply with all of these as yet unknown mitigation measures. (Open record public hearing testimony) 25. It should be pointed out that the Hearing Examiner offered to keep the record open to allow the school district to comment on the project and to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to those comments. However, the applicant desired that the record be closed with the exception to allow the school district comments and the applicant would then agree to comply with all of their recommendations. (Open record public hearing testimony) 26. The applicant's representative also identified the proposed location for the water treatment facility. This will be located off the subject property and on another development on adjacent property owned by the applicant that is contiguous with the subject property. (Open record public hearing testimony) 27. The applicant indicated that they do not have a set "site plan" that would show location and size of the various residential units. (Open record public hearing testimony) 28. The applicant also indicated that they do not know exactly what type of residential units they will have, that being either single-family residences or duplex. However, the applicant did agree that they are limited to 65 residential units. For example, a duplex would be 2 residential units. (Open record public hearing testimony) 29. The applicant indicated that the existence of the four identified wetlands will be mitigated by inclusion of the wetland areas into open space. The applicant also responded to written comments by area resident, Lila Hanson. The applicant reaffirmed that they will do water and sewer hookups to the Hanson property at the time the facilities are built out. (Open record public hearing testimony) 30. No member of the public testified in favor of the project. (Open record public hearing testimony) 31. Testifying generally neutral to the project was Lila Hanson. Ms. Hanson testified that she owns property adjacent to the subject property. She recognized that the downsizing of the project size by eliminating 100 acres meant that this 100 acres would be a buffer between the project area and her property. She was reminded by the Hearing Examiner that this 100 acres still may be developed in the future. (Open record public hearing testimony) 32. Ms. Hanson had general questions relating to the commercial aspect of the project. She generally stated that she felt that the applicant had been operating in good faith Z-07-08 and LL -08-02 Dunford PUD Rezone and Preliminary Large Lot Subdivision Page 5 of 28