Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 92 PAGE 8400 <br />Attorney Henderson noted that the above table is not an <br />adopted portion of the Comp Plan, but it provides insight as to the <br />planners' thoughts about siting commercial nodes. He pointed out <br />the two categories of Retail & Services and Convenience Goods & <br />Services. He noted that they seem to permit the location of <br />convenience goods and services adjacent to residential development <br />with buffers, but over on Retail and Services, it suggests that <br />they be close to residential areas, but certainly not adjacent to <br />single family residences. <br />Attorney Henderson stressed that there is an adjacent problem <br />here with single-family homes on Bowline Drive. Admittedly, the <br />property owners had the opportunity since the 1980s to question the <br />node and the commercial zoning. He realized that the Board is sort <br />of stuck with the zoning and with the Comp Plan, but he felt there <br />is flexibility in the zoning and the Comp Plan to deny this project <br />on the basis of incompatibility. <br />Attorney Henderson introduced his client, Jack MacLean, who <br />plans to present specific information on some deficiencies in the <br />site plan itself and some other matters. <br />Jack MacLean, 139 Anchor Drive, president of the Moorings <br />Property Owners's Association, planned to talk about three specific <br />areas they believe are failures in the site plan -- not enough <br />green space -- Mooringline Drive is a major roadway driveway -- the <br />area from which customers would come. <br />Mr. MacLean distributed copies of Exhibit 3, a 28 -page <br />presentation of arguments supporting their request that the <br />Halvorsen site plan appeal be denied. <br />75 <br />July 12, 1994 <br />� O <br />