My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/4/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
12/4/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:32 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:18:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/04/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DEC 41985 soo>c . 62 <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />While the Planning Department respects the opinion of the Plan- <br />ning and Zoning Commission, the staff -still feels that conditions <br />have not changed sufficiently to justify a change in the Agricul- <br />tural land use designation. <br />Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the subject <br />property not be redesignated to RR -2. Based on this recommenda- <br />tion, staff recommends that the subject property not be rezoned <br />to RS -1. <br />y Planner Shearer emphasized that the subject property is two <br />miles west of 1-95 and more than a mile west of the existing node <br />and staff feels Agricultural is a very important designation on <br />the Land Use Plan, the purpose of it being to preserve land in <br />the County for agricultural use and prevent urban sprawl and leap <br />frog development. He further wished to point out that while the <br />subject property is not designated environmentally sensitive on <br />the Plan, it is in an "A" flood zone; this factor was not -pointed <br />out to the Planning & Zoning Commission, and they did not <br />consider it when they made their recommendation. Planner Shearer <br />further pointed out that this property is two miles west of where <br />the utilities lines terminate; although, he did not feel utili- <br />ties are really a major factor at one unit per acre. However, <br />the proposed development would substantially impact SR 60 and put <br />it above capacity. The Planning & Zoning Commission did vote <br />unanimously in favor of the proposed rezoning and redesignation <br />because they thought changes in the area justify it, but staff <br />recommends denial. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed some things need to be <br />pointed out re utilities. He noted that at one unit per acre, <br />septic tanks and wells are a possibility, but if you are talking <br />about running lines out there, you are talking about half a <br />million dollars for extension of that service. Another important <br />point is that this area is not in the service area'for the South <br />County water plant, which already has been expanded far beyond <br />the original intent, and the South County wastewater plant does <br />not even have the capability at present of handling the existing <br />-service area if it were al -1 developed. He, therefore, has talked <br />38 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.