Minutes 06-03-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner Gordon noted that the Commissioners have an email at their places with her suggestion and staff responses. She is concerned about high intensity uses in the Rural Buffer. Commissioner Gordon said she suggested the addition of language to the JPA. She said the attorney said it was fine to add clarification, and planning staff said this was workable; however, this would have to go before the boards. Commissioner Gordon said this would only be a change to page 9 of the packet, in the blue sentence that is right before item C. She suggested adding language that refers to the agricultural support uses as "those allowable in the Rural Buffer that are permitted through the ASE-CZ." Michael Harvey said staff has provided a response. He said the joint planning land use plan is just a plan. He said the document spelling out allowable or unpermitted uses is the UDO, and the existing language achieves what Commissioner Gordon is looking for. He said the agricultural support enterprises conditional zoning district is a floating district, and it is only applied when someone makes application for it. He said there is a specific set of allowed uses, and if it not listed as permitted, then it is not noted as permitted in that particular district. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to modify the language to include "or those agricultural support uses allowable in the Rural Buffer that are permitted" to the end of the blue text on page 9 of the abstract. No second. Motion fails. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the Board to: 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement, 2. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment 1 which approves the amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement. Chair Jacobs referred to page 9, where the Rural Buffer is essentially defined. He said he is opposed to the definition of Rural Buffer as a "low-density area consisting of single-family homes." He said there are other uses that are specified, such as farms, resource conservation areas and natural areas. He feels the listed definition is oversimplified and inaccurate. Michael Harvey referred to page 57, which breaks the Rural Buffer into individual land use categories. He said the Rural Buffer is a generic term that refers to an area of the County that is composed of 7 or 8 individual land use categories that further define the Rural Buffer. He said the Rural Buffer is just a term, and it actually incorporates the University Lake Watershed area, the resource protection areas, and public/private open space areas. Chair Jacobs said the simple way to put it is that the Rural Buffer is the set, and those are all of the subsets. Michael Harvey said that is correct, and he referred to the map and said the specificity is spelled out on pages 57 through the land use plan. Chair Jacobs asked if this is only discussing that one land use. Michael Harvey said this is not really discussing any land use; this text amendment adds the agricultural support enterprises as being allowed in the rural buffer category. Chair Jacobs said he does not understand why the rural buffer is defined as single family residential at the top of page 6.