Laserfiche WebLink
- M M <br />Ground spraying will most often be used in groves adjacent to <br />residences. This method can result in more localized spray drift <br />which can be mitigated by feasible buffers. Therefore, staff <br />proposes revising current regulations to provide buffers to <br />mitigate ground spray drift instead of aerial spray drift. <br />Ordinance Amendments <br />(see attachment #2) <br />Two sections of the zoning code are proposed to be changed. The <br />first section, 3 (a) . 1 (e) (3) f , applies to newly created lots that <br />are adjacent to active agricultural operations. The second <br />section, 25.1(a)(3), applies to agricultural research facilities <br />that are adjacent to non-agricultural uses. <br />Section 1 <br />This amends section 3 (a) .1 (e) (3) f <br />that a buffer is required between a <br />and newly created residential lots <br />placement of the buffer anywhere <br />providing the ability to place the <br />agricultural and/or residential. <br />. Bufferyard Alternatives <br />of the zoning code, specifying <br />n active agricultural operation <br />This language allows for the <br />between the different uses, <br />buffer on property either zoned <br />Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have proposed <br />bufferyard requirements using setbacks and continuous screening. <br />However, at its July 28th meeting, the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission proposed additional buffering requirements over and <br />beyond staff's initial proposal. The two proposals are as <br />follows: <br />Initial Staff Planning & Zoning <br />Proposal Commission Proposal <br />- 50' building setback OR - 50' building setback <br />with a bufferyard <br />- 25' building setback with containing a 6' Type <br />a bufferyard containing a "A" screening, with <br />6' high Type "A" screening 1 tree planted per <br />which includes 1 tree 20' lineal feet (to <br />planted per 40'. eventually form a <br />continuous "treed" <br />.screening). <br />The Commission felt that ground spraying impacts required even <br />greater separation distances and buffering between agricultural <br />and residential uses than what was proposed initially by staff. <br />Staff's opinion is that any additional requirements, such as those <br />proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, would increase the <br />effectiveness of buffering new residences from spraying. However, <br />equity considerations need to be taken into account. All buf- <br />fering requirements are borne by the initial developer; no such <br />burden is borne by the developer of the grove that is platted <br />after adjacent property is developed. In the higher density <br />residential districts, 50' setbacks and continuous rear yard <br />"treed" screenings required in "initial" projects could look out <br />of place when the entire area develops residentially. Persons <br />building upon lots several years after platting would find a 50' <br />building setback unreasonable if, in the intervening years, the <br />abutting grove had been developed and the reason for the 50' <br />setback no longer existed. <br />Staff's new proposal takes into account the anticipated future <br />development density and lot size/open space characteristics of <br />areas where subdivisions might abut active agricultural opera- <br />tions. In areas where residential zoning densities are lower, it <br />is reasonable to assume that: <br />a. future residential development will involve large lots where <br />extensive setbacks will not become "out of place", and <br />73 <br />BOOK 73 571 <br />