Laserfiche WebLink
the county. Studies have shown that, yes, development does provide more taxes, but more <br />services become necessary. She thinks we have to be very careful what we decide is best for the <br />county, that the concern is quality of life. She spoke in favor of alerting new residents to the fact <br />that they are buying in the middle of an active agricultural operation. She spoke in favor of <br />protecting the businesses that are paying their way in the county now, and commented that we <br />not run any more business out of the county. She pointed out that everyone who has spoken on <br />this has a vested interest. The Commissioners need to look at this as a bigger issue. She still <br />wants some sort of notification about active agricultural operations and prospective buyers have <br />a right to know. If nothing else, she suggested that there be a referral to the Right to Farm Act. <br />Chairman Eggert voted against the nuisance disclaimer previously and still felt the same. <br />She claimed that people know that spraying occurs in agricultural areas whether it be citrus or <br />other fruit trees. <br />At the request of Commissioner Macht, Director Keating restated staff's recommendation <br />from last week for a 25' type `B" buffer having a 6' opaque feature within the buffer, with no <br />nuisance disclaimer. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY <br />Commissioner Tippin, to approve staffs recommendation above. <br />Commissioner Ginn asked for a clarification and asked if the 25' buffer was beyond the <br />25' setback. Director Keating advised that the 25'setback would overlay the buffer. She did not <br />feel that was enough space. She wanted to point out a few things, that we are talking about a <br />development within the urban service area abutting a grove. She felt that homes abutting a grove <br />with a buffer are more desirable because of the foliage. She felt that notification of active <br />agriculture has hurt development in California. She agreed to the 25' type `B" buffer, but <br />thought there was a need for an additional 25' setback, and notification of active agricultural <br />operation. For these reasons, she could not agree with the motion. <br />The Chairman called the Question and the motion carried 3-2 <br />(Commissioner Ginn and Commissioner Adams against) Ordinance No. <br />97-18 adopted. <br />27 <br />MAY 279 1997 <br />600K- 101 PAGE 606 <br />