Laserfiche WebLink
MAY 0 5 1992 [BOOK 8 <br />this will be used because there probably won't be very many <br />agricultural PD's and the requirements for the Mixed -Use District <br />option are very stringent. He felt we can look at it and work on <br />it in the interim knowing that people are not lined up to use these <br />right now. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board adopt Ordinance <br />92-22, amending the following elements of the <br />Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Element, Sanitary Sewer <br />Sub -Element, Potable Water Sub -Element, and Capital <br />Improvements Element. <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman wished to make an <br />addition in the language under Policy 1.36. Where it says, "where <br />such land is characterized by active agricultural operations <br />involving citrus groves, orchards, field crops, truck farming", she <br />felt we should add, "livestock and other animal raising." With <br />regard to that same policy, she noted that the 50 -ft. setbacks and <br />the 6 -ft. opaque fence do not buffer a residence from noise, dirt <br />or anything of that sort. <br />Director Keating advised that this was a requirement the DCA <br />said we had to adopt when we were looking at the Poppel land use <br />change. They saw that we were intruding into an agricultural area, <br />and when we told them we already have these provisions in the LDRs, <br />they said it really needed to be in here too. These are <br />essentially the same requirements we have in the LDRs. <br />Commissioner Bowman expressed her displeasure with these <br />minimum requirements as she believed that is all that will be met <br />and the neighborhood will be stuck with it. <br />Commissioner Scurlock stated that before voting for the <br />Motion, he would like some assurances from our legal staff that we <br />will have an ability to address these issues in Policies 5.9 and <br />6.1. <br />Attorney Collins advised that the only assurances he could <br />give are that policies 5.9 and 6.1 will be coming back to the Board <br />for compliance agreement on the Coraci property and that we will <br />have time between now and then to tune and shape it up to the <br />Board's satisfaction. There may be a 9 -month hiatus where if one <br />of these came in, we might have to scramble for some LDR amendments <br />on the terms of allowing a package plant. <br />132 <br />