Laserfiche WebLink
r- <br />JUL 211982 <br />gag, 1 <br />5� X66 <br />MD -1 was not designed for encouraging of mobile homes, but <br />for containment of mobile homes. He further noted that this <br />is a low priority planned service area. <br />Chairman Scurlock commented that we have not finalized <br />the utility area of the Plan at this point. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be <br />heard. There were none. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by. <br />Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously <br />closed the public hearing. <br />Discussion followed on the number of units that would <br />be allowed under R -2D zoning, and Attorney Henderson stated <br />that the zoning would allow 60 units, and they are planning <br />52. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that in the process of <br />developing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, we specifically <br />tried to provide some area that could be used for affordable <br />multi family housing, and because of access to Route 60, it <br />was felt this was a suitable area. The Chairman also raised <br />the possibility that this utility area should be given a <br />higher priority. Although there is single family in this <br />area, he noted that 6 units per acre is somewhat of a <br />transitional zone, and this whole area obviously has been <br />designated for the proposed type development. <br />Discussion continued re priority items in the utility <br />section of the Plan, and Planning Manager Challacombe noted <br />that this policy was drawn up under a different set of <br />professionals and before -many of the site plans which have <br />since come before this Board. He stated that at the <br />C.L.U.P. public hearing, he would recommend that <br />consideration be given to changing these priorities and <br />