Agenda - 02-24-1997 - C3b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2111197 Final Draft Page 5 of the ordinance would not be large enough in proportion to the size of a golf course development project to elicit corrective action from a land owner once he or she had failed to respond to a written notification of violation. Other members suggested that a Stop Work Order (also in Article 23) would be more effective when a golf course developer is not in compliance with the terms of a Special Use Permit. Article 8.7 of the Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for changing a Special Use Permit after the original approval. Minor changes may be approved by the Zoning Officer, while modifications that do not meet the ten criteria for minor changes are subject to review at a public hearing before the Board which approved the original application. The task force was concerned that some of the criteria used to distinguish a Special Use Permit modification from a minor change would not be appropriate when applied to a project with the size and complexity of a golf course. For example, an increase in usable floor area or an increase in the size or number of approved signs constitutes a modification requiring a public hearing. Given that 1) floor area is not an appropriate measure of the intensity of a golf course as a land use, and 2) that a golf course typically includes numerous signs that are not visible from a public road, the current criteria listed in Article 8.7.1 could be re-evaluated so that changes which are small in proportion to the use are considered minor and eligible for administrative review.