Laserfiche WebLink
SEP t 7 M97 ma 87 FAu 64 <br />Interstate 95 Buffer Requirement - Section 9 <br />(� Interstate 95 buffer requirement. 'All developments that <br />are adiacent to the I-95 right-of-way and that require <br />major site plan approval shall preserve or provide a <br />buffer along the I-95 frontage of the development site <br />(parcel) that satisfies the canopy tree standards of a <br />* Type "C" buffer and provides a 6' (or higher) opaque <br />feature.- <br />Commissioner <br />eature. <br />Commissioner Bird addressed Section 9.d., regarding Interstate <br />95 buffer requirements. He was not in favor of an opaque wall from <br />county line to county line because many people develop along the <br />interstate because they want the visibility. When commercial and <br />industrial parks are constructed, the lots closest to the <br />interstate are the first ones to go. He also felt that if this <br />requirement is intended for residential development, it should be <br />their choice to buffer themselves from I-95. He felt this item <br />should be given further study. <br />Director Keating explained that this was not really intended <br />for residential development but rather industrial and commercial <br />and mostly for the storage aspect. <br />Miscellaneous <br />Nancy Offutt requested that a date be placed on the charts and <br />graphs published by the County so that the public has an indication <br />of what is most current. <br />Director Keating thought- that was a good suggestion and agreed <br />to do so. <br />It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the <br />Vice Chairman closed the public hearing. <br />Vice Chairman Bowman announced that the second hearing on the <br />proposed Ordinance will be held at 5:01 p.m. on September 29, 1992. <br />There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded <br />and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:30 o'clock P. M. <br />ATTEST: <br />J. Barton, Clerk <br />Margaret C.I)Bowman, Vice Chairman <br />26 <br />