Agenda - 02-04-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

20 1 • In addition to all requirements of the UDO 2 • Uses in red text could not be applied for if property is located in the Rural Buffer 3 4 Perdita Holtz said the items in red on the charts in slide 8 indicate items that are likely to 5 be removed for consideration for properties located in the rural buffer. 6 Chair Jacobs said the purpose of this is to allow more agricultural and farming options 7 and to make it more profitable to farms in those in the rural buffer areas, while maintaining the 8 character of the areas. 9 Commissioner Gordon said she would like the towns to study this proposal and bring 10 comments before the Feb. 24th QPH. 11 She questioned the role of the Towns regarding the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) 12 and the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. She referred to the JPA section 1.2, section G 13 regarding land use categories. She read the definition of a rural buffer. She also read section 14 2.6, section f, regarding changes to the agreement. She said everyone has to agree to 15 changes in the JPA. Commissioner Gordon read the description of agricultural areas and rural 16 buffers from the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. 17 Commissioner Gordon said her last point is that this development is quite intense in its 18 uses. She said there needs to be a balance between allowing farmers to have productive use 19 of their land, and the effect on neighbors. She said the key is that this was originally conceived 20 of for areas out in the County with large lot sizes, versus subdivisions and neighborhoods. She 21 said the impact on neighbors in suburban areas needs to be considered. 22 Commissioner Gordon said some uses might be better on public water and sewer, 23 which are not allowed by definition in the rural buffer. 24 She said this is a balance, and events with a large impact could be fine in the rural 25 areas with large lots, but not in the suburban areas. 26 Alderman Seils said it would be helpful for County staff, when sharing materials with the 27 Towns, to give a narrative about some of the goals. He said it sounds like there will be some 28 expectation that the Towns undertake their review soon. He said coordination with the 29 managers would be helpful. 30 Chair Jacobs said he would hope staff will know what needs to be an amendment to the 31 joint planning agreement and what is at a staff level. 32 Council Member Ward said he would like to better understand which of the identified 33 uses are high water users, or high users of septic tanks that could cause problems in the near 34 future. He expressed concern that wells could run dry. He asked if this list is comprised of the 35 uses that the Board supports, or if it is just a general laundry list of options. 36 Chair Jacobs said this is a laundry list of options. He said with the help of feedback 37 from the town, some of the uses can be eliminated if there are concerns. He mentioned Maple 38 View Ice Cream Store as an example of success in the rural buffer. 39 He said it is a great idea to consider water and sewer use. He said hopefully an 40 agreement can be made to increase possible uses. 41 Council Member Ward asked if any uses are already allowed outside the rural buffer or 42 corporate limits. 43 Chair Jacobs said no. He said the Board will be informed by what the Towns say. 44 Commissioner McKee said he would have concerns over a regional meat processing 45 plant in a rural buffer. He said the other use that is a concern would be a saw mill, but the 46 impact of this depends on the size. 47 He said the Board needs to look at additional uses that people in the agricultural sector 48 can access to make their farms more viable. He said economic viability is one of the drivers of 49 the loss of farmland, and farmers must have the ability to adapt.