12-4-24 PB Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

27 DRAFT 1094 Chris Johnston: That might be my confusion point then. "The dimensions of the buffer within the impacted area 1095 shall be increased by 50 percent,"sounds like a size increase. Is that a misinterpretation? 1 1096 apologize. Again,this isn't my forte here. 1097 1098 Cy Stober: I don't think it's a misinterpretation. It's not how it's being interpreted by staff today. I think there's 1099 ambiguity there. I could read it either way. 1100 1101 Chris Johnston: Okay. 1102 1103 Cy Stober: And,frankly, I welcome that ambiguity because it allows us to find different remedies to sticky 1104 situations. 1105 1106 Chris Johnston: Yeah, and I guess that was going to be my next point, at some level,we want to apply as quickly 1107 as possible the exact terminologies and the exact definitions or whatever, but in doing so, that 1108 does limit a little bit of the staff wiggle room in terms of interpreting X,Y, and Z. I always struggle 1109 with this balance of we want to nail it down so that there's not wiggle room on the things that we 1110 truly do care about, like the width or whatever the case may be. But at the same time,we want to 1111 not make it that everything has to be so prescriptive that it has to be listed out here. Not to pile on 1112 about pine straw and things of that nature. I'm just trying to thread that needle. 1113 1114 Statler Gilfillen: The third point would be that the law often can be written to promote helping people to know what 1115 the right way is to do it. 1116 1117 Chris Johnston: Right. 1118 1119 Statler Gilfillen: And I'm reading this, and that's a lot of what this is trying to give is guidelines. If somebody is a 1120 novice at this, if we give some good guidelines in here,then the staff has some flexibility to work 1121 with that person,we end up with a better solution for all of us. 1122 1123 Chris Johnston: And then so coming back to the splitting hairs thing, as much as possible,we're trying to make this 1124 consistent so that there's not the confusion or whatever the case may be. It's frustrating because 1125 then we go in and we're fine-tooth combing it or whatever the case is, but who the audience is for 1126 this document,you guys deal with the commercial side of things and all the big-time developers. 1127 And I think their Statler's point, it sounds like this is also a document for everybody and making 1128 sure that it's consistent and readable for people like me who go through and see extending area 1129 and think, oh, that means this or that. Just trying to nail that down. 1130 1131 Charity Kirk: So,what do we think about tree diameter? 1132 1133 Chris Johnston: I think we need to have a proposed vote on that, and then that'll shake it out. 1134 1135 Charity Kirk: What are we voting on, 1 foot, 18 inches, 24 inches? 1136 1137 Lamar Proctor: I would make a motion to keep it at a foot. Just based on my research and looking at different tree 1138 species,you're getting into at least 35-50-year-old trees at a foot, and then if it's 24 inches,then 1139 you're talking some trees are like 80, 90 years old at that point. 1140 1141 Charity Kirk: All right. I will add it to my amendment list. 1142 1143 Adam Beeman: Is everybody else on board with keeping it at 1 foot, I guess before we go ahead and put a motion 1144 on it, let's see if everybody is in agreement. Is there any objection to that? 1145 1146 Marilyn Carter: No objection. 1147 1148 Beth Bronson: No objection, as long as we're referring to these non-residential areas.