Agenda - 02-16-1993 - VII-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

65 m, Eidenier stated that she had assumed that everything is complementing or following the Comprehensive Element of the Land Use Plan and asked if that was in the RCSC document. Stancil responded that it is not in the document but, that there is no intent to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Element of the Land Use Plan. Stancil continued that there will be some land use element amendments as a part of this process that deal with the structure of how land use patterns are developed in the rural part of the County. VOTE : 7 in favor. 2 opposed (Burklin and Waddell - both noted reasons previously stated) . MOTION: Waddell moved to change the wording on pages 23 and 24 as previously stated: . However, since many of these facilities may not fully achieve the goals of this study, only 50% of this type of open space should count towards the required open space set- aside. Burklin stated that the original concept was to allow 100% of the activities listed to count, but, they could not make up more than 50% of the open space. He continued that if the statement was reworded as requested by Waddell, only 1/2 of the activities would count, but, they could make up 100% of the open space. Discussion between Waddell and Burklin indicated the wording was unclear and needed further clarification. Chair Cantrell asked that the wording in this section be cleared up before the preparation of ordinances . The motion regarding this was dropped. MOTION: Eidenier moved that somewhere in the text, perhaps the introduction, that there be a sentence that states the options are intended to complement rather than replace the concepts in the Comprehensive Land Use Element. Seconded by Jobsis. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Eidenier moved a Resolution of Appreciation for members of the RCSC, Staff, and citizens for the work that had been done. Seconded by Gray.