Agenda - 01-19-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Crawford asked about the last sentence in 6.23 .:3. Polatty stated that in all cases lots of record would be exempt. He added that both majors and minor sub- divisions would be included in PW--II Polatty noted it was an effort at a compromise between two recom mendations in the Task. Force report. The recommendations were that-McGowan Creek become urban and there be some watershed protection standards. Polatty stated 6.231 e) and f) may need to be rewritten. Crawford asked Polatty why he picked buffers as pro- tective measures in the urban watersheds, while lot sizes protect rural. watersheds. Polatty noted buffers 11 would be required in both urban and rural watersheds. The Board discussed the compromise on McGowan Creek t.i,ib-basin and a potsib16 reexamination of the com- promise- Shanklin suggested widening the Cheeks Transition Area so that it would extend from Old 410 to Lebanon Church Road. Crawford asked if these concerns, would be' addressed in the Land Ilse Plan. Polatty responded that amend- ments to the Land Use Plan would have to be made, noting the CoMmissioners would not consider extension of zoning to Cheeks until the report was considered. Crawford noted the Planning Board had never seen the Agricultural Task Force Report. Crawford asked if policies in the Land Use Plan would be enough to deny a rezoning without specific language in the Zoning ordinance. She noted that commercial and industrial restrictions in Pw-II were eliminated and asked if a rezoning could be denied. Cannity stated that no reasons for denial were required because zoning is a legislative action, Polatty noted the activity node concept from the Land Use Plan. Crawford asked that Staff make clarifications and changes to the proposed Amendments and recognized that the staff had indicated they intended to r-ewrite them. Shanklin inquired about the :3001 reference in 6.23.2 b) , Cannity responded it was measured from the building setback line. Luce added that it was intended to provide reasonable dimensions for lots fronting on water bodies, The Board discussed this concept. The Board noted they would return to Item �5 at a later time.