7/21/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in any way an inconsistency between single family and multi family uses; it only recognizes differences in densities. 3) In regard to the statement that land use designations do not represent entitlements, Attorney Henderson felt when the Board adopted the Plan they intended that it guide development and that the Commission is, therefore, indicating by the Plan that they will be receptive to plans within that density. He further noted that the minutes of the workshop meetings indicate that higher density development was anticipated in this area, and they do not indicate that mobile home development would be encouraged. Attorney Henderson then questioned the use of the back 4;�- acres for agriculture when the front 5h will be used in residential and pointed out that one of the very significant reasons the County imposed the MD -1 classification is the carrying capacity of Route 60 which is probably the highest in the County. Attorney Henderson commented that his letter to the Planning Department reserved the right to take the position that rezoning is unnecessary under the Ordinance and that an application for site plan could be submitted immediately. He stated that he intended to reserve all rights to raise that issue if necessary. Commissioner Lyons asked if the requested rezoning is consistent with the existing Land Use Plan, and Mr. Ragsdale stated that it is consistent with both the new and old Land Use Plans. Planner Ragsdale stated that at the Planning & Zoning Commission mbeting on the 13th of May, there was a Mption to recommend approval, and that Motion failed by a 2 to 2 vote, which constituted a denial. Mr. Ragsdale read from workshop minutes re MD -1 areas, which stated that these areas are designed for 8 or anything less which is consistent with the area. He emphasized that there are single family subdivisions within that square mile area and stated that .50 PAbE J U L 21 1982 K 89