7_10_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8.7.24 transition node this is some sort of industrial transition node, that, hey, this may be coming 1552 your way. And if they buy something in the middle of the rural buffer or agricultural 1553 residential areas, they would not expect that kind of dense development. As this is 1554 presented, to ask that we change the entire planning scheme to allow for MPD-CD zoning 1555 within rural activity nodes, I think is too far of a stretch. I wish this had been presented as 1556 somewhat a more consistent residential conditional district, but for whatever reason that 1557 was not how this is presented. I think what Cy said is that the anticipated uses and the 1558 vision, the big picture and the grandeur of this vision, there were uses that the developer 1559 and the applicant are looking to put in that couldn't conform with residential conditional 1560 district zoning. 1561 1562 Charity Kirk: I think it was the large-scale multi-family housing. 1563 1564 Lamar Proctor: Right, that's just where I am. I love the vision. I just think expanding MPD-CD zoning into 1565 rural activity nodes, given the history of it, given the consistency of the uses and within 1566 entire comprehensive land use scheme is inconsistent for me. 1567 1568 Steve Kaufmann: I guess I just don't feel comfortable with the plan, especially given the feedback from all 1569 the neighbors. It just doesn't seem to fit in that particular place. Even though the vision is 1570 great, the neighbors really don't want it, and it doesn't fit with the culture there, so for that 1571 reason I would not support it. 1572 1573 Beth Bronson: I think that we should be supporting a diverse kind of housing opportunities within the 1574 county and countywide. I think that the idea that more residents over the age of 55 will be 1575 coming to the area or aging in place in the area is only going to grow, but as is the rest of 1576 the population in this county, both for manufacturing, as well as for jobs that are outside of 1577 the county, and so it's well known that the rural buffer area has long been wanting to be 1578 preserved with agricultural residential and farmland. There are efforts to preserve 1579 farmland in the area; however, that doesn't stop owners from wanting to develop on their 1580 land and wanting to do a novel thing on their land. The master plan development 1581 conditional district is not something that I would find conducive to be adjacent to 1582 agricultural residential, and much less that far from community services such as public 1583 utilities and emergency services. I would find that there's a lot more questions that 1584 remain, and to go with a master plan development I feel like that would be shortchanging 1585 the precedent that this would be setting, so that's kind of where I'm at with this. The 1586 couple of conditions that we've discussed I think might be a good start, but I'm also 1587 wondering if anybody with Hands Four Development or anybody from planning staff 1588 brought the Economic Development Department into the discussion around this 1589 cooperative development or project. 1590 1591 Patrick Mallett: Well two things, so I would encourage you if you get into the part where you're crafting 1592 conditions you be very specific as you normally do with conditional districts and word 1593 them out item by item as part of your recommendation. Cases go through a process and 1594 a calendar and that starts with an internal analysis and then the items are also shared 1595 with various other departments. Economic Development is part of a development 1596 advisory committee. 1597 1598 Beth Bronson: So, the DAC saw it? 1599 1600