8-6-25 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9.3.25 1647 Beth Bronson: Yeah. For commercial. 1648 1649 Charity Kirk: Well, they're trying to put some density in these. 1650 1651 Beth Bronson: Definition of the community activity node is for commercial specifically, so it wouldn't really, at all, 1652 apply to a subdivision. Even if it was a major subdivision. 1653 1654 Charity Kirk: You're welcome to read that. 1655 1656 Delores Bailey: Yes. And I guess this question is now directed at staff is because that property, and I know that 1657 this is going to change, because there's a Comprehensive Plan coming, and so therefore, if the 1658 new Comprehensive Plan was adopted, this may change. But right now,there's an allotted 1659 acreage for commercial activity out there in that intersection. And I know this came up a couple 1660 years ago when there was a rural residential wanting to become commercial activity. Basically, 1661 there's an allotment of acreage, and so by the idea of this parcel removing itself from commercial 1662 potential, does that just eliminate the acreage available for commercial development? 1663 1664 Cy Stober: No. It's a flat acreage. It's not proportional, so what it would theoretically result in is more 1665 pressure on the remaining properties to potentially be developed for non-residential purposes, 1666 because there would be less gross acreage to develop for non-residential purposes. All of these 1667 properties would have to go through a hearing process and be rezoned, or this subject property 1668 would should it come before us as a non-residential proposal, so we'd be at a hearing anyway, but 1669 it does take acreage out of the activity node that theoretically could be developed for non- 1670 residential purposes. So, there's less gross acreage, but it doesn't affect that hard,firm number 1671 that can be developed for non-residential purposes and per our comp plan. I'm not sure if that 1672 makes sense. I hope it does. 1673 1674 Beth Bronson: No, it does. Yeah. It's just an overly direct question, I guess, but yes,would allow other 1675 properties that would now have additional acreage knowing that that property was no longer 1676 available for commercial. It could now go to other areas or other parcels. 1677 1678 Cy Stober: Yeah. If you do the simple math, your denominator just got smaller. 1679 1680 Beth Bronson: Yes. Thank you. 1681 1682 Lamar Proctor: Did you have another question, Charity? 1683 1684 Charity Kirk: Well, it's kind of a question-statement, and it comes off the bird box thing, especially since you 1685 don't know what birds you're trying to support, and bird boxes only support birds at particular times 1686 of the season. Native plants are what support birds, and I know you are going to be required to 1687 plant native plants, but I would encourage you to plant a diversity of native plants, and consider 1688 buffers, meadows, as well as forest edges. The Audubon Society has wonderful volunteers and 1689 services that can help support the birds in the area. But landscapers tend to know stuff too, so I'm 1690 just assuming you do. 1691 1692 Lamar Proctor: All right, any discussion amongst the Board about any conditions or any other aspect? 1693 1694 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair,we have had one member of the public ask staff if they may be allowed to speak before 1695 the Board. It would be at your discretion. 1696 1697 Lamar Proctor: And who is that? 1698 1699 Cy Stober: I'm afraid I don't know. 1700 1701 Lamar Proctor: Oh. If you could raise your hand?