8/23/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Bowman did not see any problem in having a larger buffer and more green space where a grove is sold and turns into a development, but Director Keating pointed out that it is the economics of the situation and the burden you are putting on developers. Commissioner Eggert commented that she is reading in here that if a grove operator wished to establish a grove in an area that had burned down and there was still residential around it, there is no way we can say the grove must set back 25' or 50' from that residential. Director Keating confirmed that we cannot if the property is zoned agricultural because agricultural operations don't have to come through the site plan process. He noted that one way to prevent this would be to have them zoned residential where they could not put the grove back. Discussion continued at length about the various possibili- ties when a new grove is established among existing residential areas, and Acting Administrator Collins noted that if the Board wished a reciprocal measure, we could require that Agriculture be required to provide a buffer in that`par.ticular instance. Director Keating believed to do that we would have to have some mechanism to make agricultural uses such as groves come through site plan approval, but Acting Administrator Collins pointed out that we have a section requiring special setbacks for residential adjacent to agricultural operations, and there could be a another section requiring Agriculture to setback from residences, with the provision that if they didn't comply, they could be fined for non -conformity. Commissioner Eggert stated that she finds it a little difficult to protect only on one side of this situation. Commissioner Bird believed in this county, you will find residential encroaching on a grove a lot more than the other way around, and he felt that is something that could be taken up separately from the issue that is before us now. AUG 2 3 1988 76 Boor. 73 F4F.57�4