Agenda - 09-04-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

21 1 'ize, iliC InWe and 'n and®NManage®NWent), While the r"e ms'ed/ang age rapt e ' ®NW "e e aW ti n '9 the s'� fill 2 fa;W�"""®N'WdW'W(/ /�.. ".. the m he p "aWCtdcaWlF f the cW®N'y'e. 3 4 My understanding further tracks with the two paragraphs concerning "Agricultural Areas" on 5 page 83 of the JPA land use plan (page 16 of agenda item 7c). 6 7 There is a map in the original JPA land use plan which has symbols indicating where farms are 8 located. 9 10 In agenda item 7-d, in Attachment 4, is a map of parcels in use value. My understanding is that 11 this map would be the modern equivalent of the older map. 12 Staff response: Ccr°r"ect, Attach, tent 4 H I Id he a ®NW de "n eq i ;lent f inf r"°, iatmcnal 13 p rp n 'e and d es' nct appea t "eplace cr"hecc®aWe part cf the JPA, 14 After reviewing that map in our agenda materials (on page 19 of agenda item 7d), it is my 15 understanding that the parcels in use tax value in the Rural Buffer would be the Agricultural 16 areas and the other parcels would be the Rural Residential areas. 17 18 Staff response: 7"""'he par"cel identified cn that Hap and L fithin the R a/ B ff r" H I Id he 19 cn n ide ed "Aq °icnItnr'al Area '” ncH I and "Hnr"al mclentma,Wl and Ag °mcWlt 'al ea"if the 20 JPA Nrle e a: tended aW p ion 1"""'he "H W 'al /°'esidential and Ag ic It W 'al A ea" L I Id 21 be thcse par"cell, plus fa cntside the pr"es'ent-ns'e a/ne p (ifs n ) and the 22 e m m m e m the the ,1 le f in the H W "a:W/ B �"°�s'mcl�ntma,Wl WS'�s'. h��""� Id 'till h� the cth��"°s'm�^ ci�t�c 23 (Re 'n W re P "ctecti n A "eaW P hlic-P a to Open Space A "eaW Retail 1""" "a de A "eaW9 24 El^t "a;Wcti e L/se, and the (lni e "sit f Lake Wa to —tied A ea) Nrthich aW en t depicted in the 25 tnialx 26 27 I would appreciate it if the planning staff and the county attorney would comment on my 28 understanding of(A) and (B) above. Some of my understanding of these issues comes from 29 my having helped develop the JPA plan and agreement when I served as chair of the Orange 30 County Planning Board, but most of it comes from a recent review of relevant information. 31 32 End of first email. 33 34 Continued Staff Responses: 35 Commissioner Gordon is correct that staff's proposal to combine the existing `Rural 36 Residential' and `Agricultural' land use categories, as detailed in the Joint Planning Land 37 Use Plan, is not mandated by State statute. Having said that existing language within 38 the Joint Planning Land Use Plan, which we are proposing to delete, is no longer 39 consistent with State law with respect to `defining' how a property owner `demonstrates' 40 he/she operates a farming operation. From that standpoint we are, through this process, 41 addressing the Plan's inconsistency with State law with respect on `how' someone 42 demonstrates their property is or is not a farm. 43 44 I am referring to the following language (again which we are recommending be deleted): 45 46 Dur/rk. the c, 4) if back:f, infirmati, ), a Lana use sureH°ey cm�rwa 47 the J, 4rit Plannirk i ^area, The surndey"in 'acate these land areas currently in use fir 48 aur/cultural purp, ses This inftrmati af further er/feea thr, lk�b the Orark�e L;:", linty 49 T Office ''etertnine these farms -°hich ere a ualif/e ana liste fir use Halite 50 t ry atimn purp,.ses,