Agenda - 04-05-2011 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~~ Larry vl~right: If I came to you as an applicant Wanting something that was in the content here and there was an issue raised that I didn't see ire here, wouldn't you as part of the planning staff, .say yes here it is? Just like you would say, the Comprehensive Plan in sectian ~.~~1 says this,,,. so we must abide by the Comprehensive Pian? ~lauldn't you refer me to this as an applicant if came and said it's not in here and I don't see it in Section S? You Would say, yes but.....we must abide by this, Shannon Berry; ~'es, we may not be able to puff it off the flop of our head but wc.'d cortainly be able to rind it in the document tv give to you; bath this document and the Comprehensive Plan. Larry fright; So my question comes back again, are We inserting this in here to please people ar are we inserting it in here to make this document stronger? That's my question. Samantha Cabe; I think we all have our oven idea of what the answer is but i don't want to interrupt your presentation but I am wandering, f would be willing to make a motion at this time that we vote not to include this language if you Want to do each of your sections one at a time rather than waiting to the end. Brian Crawford; That`s a gaol idea. Samantha Cabe; So that we know what we're voting an. Judith Wegner: This refers to Conditional Districts specifically, Attachment 4, you have crossed out PD meaning Planned Districts? Craig Benedict: Yes, that was the previous language. Judith 1Negner; Right, sa I want to be sure We're zeroing in on that The Conditional Districts included in this set at the moment. are Master Plan,...mabile homes and public interest, right? The references to previous Planned Districts, it makes sense to be to then be thinking about major mixed use types of things being near interstates but if it's mobile homes, .I don't know that it follows same of the same statements here would ft in the~same kind of Way. I know this is also another theme we are going to need to go back to in terms of some of the assumptions and some of what might be called floating zone type arrangements with master planned arrangements but what I am wanting to be sure about is this, is it redundant or worthwhile. it's really, if it's been lifted out of a context that isn't the current context, I am a bit concerned that we'd end up with same kind of a driving force by cutting and pasting at the last minute here, It may be an inadvisable way to ga, Could you clarify that? Craig Benedict: (Revleu~ed corrdlflonal zoning charf) Presently everything that is being suggested herein the old ~.4 is being suggested to apply to the whole Conditional District section which includes the MPDs, the mobile name parks, those Conditional Zoning Districts, and Conditional Use which are those specific "1 know what I Want to do" with the Special Use Permit, This is a I in to that I~bal Conditional Districts heading far all those sections here If vue [oolc at a mobile hams park which is a ppy 9 ~g , Conditional Zoning District and it says relat~anship to interstate highways, you still have the ability to say it's applicability far the specific petition or application. . Judith '~egner; I don't know what you just said but I am increasingly worried that this is boiler plate that's going ~o be expansively applied. That we're not really given that this is coming at us right now without a chance to go back and crosswalk it, makes me uneasy, Brian Crawford: You're right, We're trying to piecemeal it in at the last minute that could be dangerous and have unintended consequences, Mo~io~; Samantha Gabe moved that the Planning Board reject the inclusion of the language that's suggested in Attachment ~ and Attachment 4 of the Preamble to the Post Quarterly Hearing L1D0 Planning Board Meeting and not recommend these changes to the UDO. Seconded ~by Afan Campbell. Samantha Cabe: That's my matian but lei me state my reasons for that on the record, First of all, it's not necessary because the Comprehensive Plan is referenced at the beginning of this document and it is indicated that this document should be construed within the confines of that Comprehensive Plan. Secondly, l agree with Judith that the Comprehensive Plan is designed to be just that, comprehensive and the language that is being suggested to be added here was not lifted from the Comprehensive Plan but rather a specific part of the former Zoning Ordinance which when it was originally drafted was likely drafted for a specil•Ec purpose or sections even though it might have been a broad purpose or sectian it was not intended to be, quote, unquote, comprehensive. I think a lot of time went in to developing the Comprehensive Plan to make it just that what it is intended to be the big picture and we shouldn't take a snap shat of a smaller picture and try to make it into something that is comprehensive; U 7