9/21/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r SEP 211981 Box 47 PAGE 564 COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THERE ALSO HAD BEEN DISCUSSION THAT WHEN THE"MXD CATEGORY WAS DEVELOPED AS A RESIDENTIAL USE, IT WOULD TAKE ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. IT WAS FELT THAT GIFFORD AREA WAS AN EXCEPTION TO THAT, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT THEY HAD DESIGNATED 3 MXD AREAS - #1 GIFFORD WHICH COULD HAVE UP TO 14 UNITS PER ACRE, #2 ALONG U.S. 1,AND #3 THE OSLO ROAD AREA, THE U. S. I AND OSLO ROAD AREAS RESIDENTIALLY WOULD TAKE ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURROUNDING LAND USE. THIS, OF COURSE, HAS TO BE DONE THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY OF REZONING EXISTING ZONING IN EXCESS OF THAT DESIGNATED IN THE PLAN, AND CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED IF IT IS UNDEVELOPED LAND, HE WOULD EXPECT IT WOULD BE REZONED TO WHATEVER IS APPROPRIATE NOT TO EXCEED THE CAP FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA, IF THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED USE ON THAT PROPERTY, HE FELT WE ARE SAYING WE WANT TO FIND A WAY TO ERASE THE NON -CONFORMITY. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER COMMENTED THAT HE HAS PREPARED AN OVERLAY IN RELATION TO THE PLAW AS IT EXISTS OF THOSE LANDS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REZONED IF THE PLAN IS IMPLEMENTED, AND WHILE THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF LAND INVOLVED, IT IS NOT A LARGE PER- CENTAGE OF THE LAND IN THE COUNTY. COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT THE QUESTION OF CONFORMITY AND NON- CONFORMITY IS VITAL, AND NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD. IN OTHER WORDS, ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN, EVEN THOUGH IT EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM DENITY UNDER THE PROPOSED PLAN, WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN AND WE WOULD NOT INITIATE A REZONING ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, HE BELIEVED THAT AT SOME POINT THE BOARD ALSO WILL HAVE TO DEVELOP CRITERIA AS TO PROJECTS THAT ARE IN PROCESS AND ESTABLISH SOME KIND OF REASONABLE CUT OFF POINT,