3/5/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAR 5 1986 soon 63 i.99 Chairman Scurlock was concerned about providing some sort of transitional zone, but Commissioner Lyons felt that the chances of having good buffering are a lot better when you have to go into a RM -6 situation than the other way around, because there is - really no site plan approval needed for RS -6. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission, wanted clarification about running the rezoning concurrent with the site plan, as she felt the zoning should be in order before the site plan goes to technical review. Commissioner Lyons explained that the developer made an offer to set up a deed restriction for a 250 -ft. buffer on the southwest 10 -acre parcel and that takes time. If all those things were in place, the question of when the rezoning came in would not be so important. Mrs. Eggert felt it could work, but she was mostly concerned about the logistics. Attorney Stewart stated that the developer offered the 250 -ft. buffer to be reflected as part of the site plan process. It will be there. Administrator Wright noted that the Board does have the right on an appeal to review a site plan, and Commissioner Wodtke added that the County also has the right to initiate a rezoning. Director Keating explained that if a project is not developed according to the site plan, it will go to the Code Enforcement Board. Attorney Vitunac cautioned that a 250 -ft. buffer is not a requirement of our Zoning Code and cannot be the reason to deny a site plan appeal. Chairman Scurlock felt that orderly transition is a planning goal, but Attorney Vitunac pointed out that is where Commissioner Wodtke's idea of a quick rezoning back to agricultural would come in. Then the only issue is what kind of rights has the developer vested or what damages has he lost. He recommended that we put it on the record right now that any money spent on the project 24