7_10_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8.7.24 we want to do. Do we know definitively where the dumpsters are going to be and the 1701 ADA. I'm not speaking for the applicant. I'm just saying that that is a reality and a 1702 distinction between those two zoning categories. 1703 1704 Beth Bronson: And I think that makes complete sense that you would need a master plan conditional so 1705 that you could obtain approval and then make those changes necessary as you go 1706 through. 1707 1708 Pat Mallett: Then you're diving into more of the details in the design of the site plans and construction 1709 drawing-type documents. 1710 1711 Beth Bronson: Correct. And in the final site plan, if you are awarded a master plan conditional district, 1712 that final plan that gets submitted with the first land distributing permit is that plan and 1713 cannot deviate from that plan. Is that correct? 1714 1715 Patrick Mallett: It has to be consistent, yes. 1716 1717 Beth Bronson: Okay. And if anybody wants to see, this is the general statute for family care homes. 1718 This is the one that they're referencing. They're speaking to about being consistent with 1719 general statute language. Quite simply, it makes a ton of sense. 1720 1721 Charity Kirk: I don't have a problem with the family care homes. I have a problem with the rural 1722 neighborhood activity node getting enlarged so much and it not being consistent with what 1723 they want, but the family care homes I'm fine with. 1724 1725 Beth Bronson: And so, to my original questions that brought you up there to explain so much, it would've 1726 been so helpful to this application had the Economic Development Department been 1727 involved in the construction of this or in the development of this idea in setting this 1728 precedent. There would've been so many more questions that could've been addressed 1729 that the community would've had. 1730 1731 Charity Kirk: And why? Why would it have been more helpful? 1732 1733 Beth Bronson: Because what they're proposing doesn't have a precedent in the area. It is a stark 1734 change to the comprehensive land use plan and the future land use map, and so, if there 1735 were something like that that they have been working with the County on for years, I 1736 thought that it would be beneficial because the Economic Development Department would 1737 be able to help quantify and qualify all of these different elements that would help 1738 preserve that natural rural character while also allowing innovation to occur. So, that's 1739 just my comment. Thank you. I do also wonder if the reason for the amendment cannot 1740 include the multi-family standards. To what we were talking about earlier, this is an 1741 extremely complex project, and so, the idea that it's going to be so far from any westward 1742 expansion of a municipality, that there are no municipalities that could expand north of it 1743 or south of it, I have a real concern just about going forward with a recommendation that 1744 is going to be taking such a chance on this rural development. So, that's kind of where I 1745 stand, and I realize that that's not very eloquent, but it does, I think, address the 1746 neighbors, as well as the concerns of the residents and for the members of H4D. Again, 1747 it's not that I, and I echo what you guys are saying, it's not that this is a bad plan. It's a 1748 very good plan. It's just understanding what that's doing while we're in the middle of 1749 reviewing the comprehensive plan for 2050, and it does bring a lot of questions up for 1750