5/27/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

require a 30' wide, Type "A" buffer with a 6' opaque feature and a 40' building (residence) setback within new'residential projects where such projects abut active agricultural operations. The Board also considered but took no action on the issue of whether or not to require a nuisance disclaimer. Such a disclaimer would be used to "warn" potential lot buyers and new residents about potential nuisances from adjacent agricultural operations. Due to a lack of consensus, the Board continued consideration of the ordinance to its May 27th meeting. Based upon the Board's action at its May 20th meeting, staff has modified the proposed ordinance (see attachment #1; note: ordinance text changes made since the May 20th meeting are in bold type). The Board is now to give final consideration to adopting an ordinance that addresses the residential/agricultural buffer issue. P1 Besides the ordinance changes to reflect the Board's action at the May 20th meeting, staff has made one other change to the draft ordinance. That change was insertion of a provision indicating that the 40' special setback and the buffer requirement need to be in effect along the perimeter of a residential project for only as long as the adjacent agricultural use is in operation. Therefore, the new proposed ordinance states that the "...buffer, opaque feature, and special setback shall be maintained until such time as the adjacent property being buffered is converted to a non- agricultural use". In planning staff's opinion, no special buffering is necessary and normal zoning district setbacks should apply once the agricultural use that created the need for the setback and buffer is converted to an allowable non-agricultural use (e.g. residential). It should be noted, however, that residents of the original project within which the special buffer and setback were required, could decide to maintain the buffer and extra setback even after county regulations no longer require them to do so. Staff's full analysis of the residential/agricultural compatibility and buffer issue was included in its report for the May 20th Board meeting. 1. Newly Proposed Ordinance 2 : --Chart --Comp&=iaon oT_-Recommen3at1onBoard Action - - 3. Graphics: Type "A" & Type "B" Buffers4. Typ Type B Comparison of Rough Cost Estimates -i a "A"- vs. " " Buffers 5. Nuisance Disclaimer Options 6. Memo from Attorney's Office on Nuisance Disclaimer 21 MAY 279 1997 &L nrl U 1 PAGE '1 0-