Agenda - 10-16-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

One means of addressing the contradiction is to delete the last sentence. To address home occupations, the wording could be changed to - "...limited to residential, including home occupations, agricultural or open space... ". This begs the question - What about churches, recreation centers, etc. which might be normally associated with residential areas? The intent of use limitations was to insure that non- residential subdivisions have public streets. Another means of dealing with such an issue is to add a new #6 in the opening paragraph which might read as follows: 6. The subdivision roads are part of a non- residential development consisting of office, retail, industrial, and simil -ar businesses, each to be located on a separate lot. Conclusion Why I am not philosophically opposed to the proposed amendments and see that some real problems can be resolved through their approval, my real concerns are more related to design issues and citizen awareness. In an attempt to deal with problems, ordinances are drafted and approved which result in or perpetuate undesirable development patterns. In fact, the problems may be better solved through administrative, financial, and /or legal mechanisms than 'design standards. of greater concern, though, is whether or not the citizens are aware of the implications of these proposals. If the Transportation Advisory committee, the Planning Board, and the Board of Commissioners understand the proposals and their impact, and wish to approve them, the Planning Staff wish to seek to insure their implementation. I simply do not see another °mobile home park" situation occur where standards are adopted, then rescinded. In a period when the Planning & Inspections Department is attempting to improve public relations, such a situation would do little to help. 531 s