3/18/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 100 FACE 953 Although presently zoned A-1, that land is designated L-1 and is anticipated to eventually be converted to residential uses. In the past, compatibility has been a problem where agricultural uses and residential uses, particularly single-family houses, abut. That is one reason for the required setbacks and buffers described above. Staff's position is that, with those setbacks and buffers, a mobile home park development on the subject property would be compatible with an abutting agricultural use. This is demonstrated by the low rate of reported compatibility problems between the existing mobile home park and agricultural uses in the area. In contrast, past experience indicates that single-family development of the subject property would be more likely to generate incompatibility complaints, not only with the agricultural uses to the north, but also with the mobile home park to the south, east, and west. Additionally, the proposed rezoning would reduce potential incompatibilities by substantially reducing the length of the existing A-1/RMH-8 border. One alternative raised at the transmittal public hearing was the possibility of redesignating and rezoning only the south 1,200 feet of the subject property, with the north 120 feet of the site remaining unchanged. This alternative was proposed after Robert Adair spoke. Mr. Adair is the director of the Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, -an agricultural research center located north of the subject property. Concerned about the compatibility of a mobile home park on the subject property with agricultural uses to the north, Mr. Adair requested that the subject request be denied. Mr. Adair also requested that, if the request was granted, then a 100 foot buffer be required along the site's north boundary. After staff noted that site development conditions cannot be imposed on land use amendment and rezoning approvals, the Board discussed the option of redesignating and rezoning only the south 1,200 feet of the subject property. The Board then indicated general support of that alternative. Although that alternative would ensure a greater separation between mobile home development on the site and the agricultural uses of The Kerr Center, the following problems would be associated with that alternative: • Since the existing A-1 zoning for the north 120 feet of the subject property would not change, the A-1/RMH-8 zoning district border would continue to exist. In fact, that border would be longer than it would be if the subject request were granted; • Illogical and irregularly shaped land use designation and zoning district borders would be created; • Based on recent court decisions, the Board must cite a specific reason, supported by comprehensive plan policies, for not granting the RMH-8 zoning district to the 15.1 acre M-1 designated portion of the subject property. That reason must advance a legitimate public purpose. As adopted, the county's comprehensive plan contains no policies specificly requiring transitional zoning or buffers in excess of those presently required by county LDRs; and • The applicant could seek and, based on recent court decisions likely receive, a rezoning to RS -3 or any residential zoning district allowing a density up to 3 units/acre for the north 120 feet of the L-1 designated portion of the site. Based on past experience, such a rezoning would likely result in more potential incompatibilities than would occur if the subject request were granted. Therefore, staffIa position is that redesignating and rezoning only a portion of the site _would not decrease potential incompatibilities. For these reasons, staff's position is that the M-1 land use designation and mobile home park development on the entire subject property would be compatible with the surrounding area. Potential Impact on En ironmental Ouali, Environmental impacts of residential development on the subject property would be the same under either the existing or the proposed land use designation. The site has been cleared and contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or sensitive uplands. Therefore, development of the site is anticipated to have little or no impact on environmental quality. For this reason, no adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated. MARCH 18, 1997 so M M M