Minutes 09-08-2014 QPH - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

agricultural residential is more of a transitional district going toward rural residential, or if it is a lower intensity of use. Tom Altieri said it is staff's position that there is very little difference between rural residential and agricultural residential. He said the only difference is the allowance of the agricultural support enterprises zoning construct in the agricultural residential. He said due to the agricultural nature of this amendment area, this is a better fit. Commissioner porosin asked if these parcels are currently in agricultural use. Tom Altieri said some of them are. He said staff could outline more about the differences in the permitted uses between the two districts. Commissioner McKee said the technical differences between the rural residential and agricultural residential have not really been explained. He said he is curious if this is moving from a high density town area to a lower density agricultural residential and then back to a higher density rural residential. He is not sure he understands that. Commissioner McKee said he is generally familiar with the area, and it is a very steep area. He questioned whether there are any agricultural operations at all in this area. Tom Altieri said it is his understanding that there are some agricultural operations. He said he does not have a copy of the zoning ordinance of permitted uses, but there are three or four differences. He said a cemetery is a permitted use in one, and it is not allowed in the other. He said the minimum lot size and impervious surface are the same for both. Commissioner Gordon said it would be a good idea to get more information. She said she has pointed out that rural residential (R1) districts do not allow Agricultural Support Enterprises and the answer she received was that the R1 district specifically designates no farm activity. She noted that the R1 districts do tend to be closer to the towns. She said, given that the purpose of Agricultural Support Enterprises was to keep farmers farming, it did seem strange to her that it was not allowed in the R1 district. She thinks that more information should be gathered. Commissioner Pelissier said there is no real difference in density, but there is a difference in uses. She said it is important to keep this in mind. Commissioner Pelissier noted that the watershed overlay areas have a lesser density. Commissioner Price said the yellow area of the map tends to have a suburban feel, even though it is rural. She said there is no intensive farming like you would find in the green, so it is more of an intensive use rather than density. Commissioner porosin said it seems like that is what you would want closer to the town. There was some discussion about the map shading, relative to the town. Chair Jacobs said it seems simple to get the different explanations of the categories, and he asked for a listing of the existing land uses of the 22 parcels in question. Commissioner Rich asked if all of the neighbors in the area had been reached, and if anyone had a problem with the switch back to the County. Tom Altieri said over 50 people attended the joint meeting, and only 2 came for the areas that were going to be released. He said all of the property owners have been notified, and there has been no opposition to being released by the town. He said he had received some questions from folks who were just relieved to find out there were no development projects associated with this. Pete Hallenbeck suggested taking an aerial photo and overlaying the areas, in addition to creating a list. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the Board to: Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting.