Agenda - 09-01-2009 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8/5/09 ICJ historic crossroad for Cedar Grove. They had said at that time, five (5) acres of limited commerclal and five (5) acres of neighborhood commercial. When the 1994 watershed regulations went into effect, they overiayed and put widener restrictions in there. We do not know if they intentionally or unintentionally knocked out three quarters (3/4) of this node. What we are trying th determine was it the idea that they wanted to exclude this other area from non-residential. What we are suggestion now is yes you can have some non-residential uses on the other three quarters (3/4) of this intersection but not allow anymore impervious than if it was for residential use. Six percent (6%) is very restrictive. Lany Wright Here it says, and again I'm referring to the land use which is dated but I'd like to know what I can use to substitute this or where I can find the content Michael Harvey: In the Comprehensive Plan. Lany Wright: I couldn't find the counterpart to this. If you could send me an email. Thanks. Its says the soils are rated poor for septic tank absorption fields and most building types. What does that mean? Michael Harvey: That the soil are poor and do not lend themselves to normal septic systems. Lany Wright Then we would be sensitive to that? Michael Harvey: If they can't get a septic permit they can't develop any uses on a parcel of property regardless if the proposed amendment is adopted or not This amendment will not eliminate the need for a property owner to comply with all applicable permitting requirements allowing for any type of development. Larry Wright: Part of that really is in that watershed. Another thing, this looks like it is pretty big. From what I understand, the spirit of the Cedar Grove Township was to keep it rural. One of the things they are trying to do in the OUTBoard is to consolidate economic development areas to make them walkable and less driving and it would be nice since this is a sensitive area to consider making it small. Michael Harvey: In my opinion, in order to do that would require a comprehensive plan amendment and a land use element map amendment to reclassify the rural community activity node. Larry Wright: So what kind of amendments are we looking at here? Michael Harvey: Here we are looking to clarify what types of development are allowed within various critical and protected watershed overlay districts in instances where there may be a previously located node. Lany Wright: Aren't we ultimately looking at this anyway? Michael Harvey: I don't know if that is the ultimate goal. Judith Wegner. I wonder, Michael, for the old time Planning Board, is there a chance to do a bus tour? To see different areas of the County and I wonder if before February maybe late fall we could do that, is that possible? It relates to our small area development and a field trip might really be beneficial. Tommy McNeill: Absolutely, I think that would be a wonderful idea, I agree with that one hundred percent (100°k). Additionally, there are some public areas within the County that the Planning Board should be aware of and that could be added to the tour. Craig Benedict: I've done a tour for some Planning Board members a few years ago about Economic Development Districts (EDD) also so that could be part of the tour. Judith Wegner: I think that would be helpful. I also think about the fire department and where they are located. We all are doing our hest to pay attention to this but maybe even on a weekend we go and dig in and get knowledgeable and prepare with a number of folks who are doing it. That would be very helpful. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I want to follow up on what Larry was talking about and it is a question. Larry was interested in an amendment that would reinforce the historical nature plus. the watershed protection. I don't want to lose that If we do have an amendment for this watershed, my question is does it apply to all the activity nodes for economic development? Michael Harvey: No