2024-09-26 PL-INT-2024-008822 GP 2045 Draft Comments - T. Keeney

Home

the current State Authority. However it seems entirely appropriate that, consequent to communication and collaboration between the State Commission and the County that the State Commission would take responsibility for initiating District Boundary Amendments to be considered by their Commission. It seems that this procedural proposal runs counter to reasonable administrative divisions. P 26 Program the initiation of rezoning in targeted growth areas. Comment: This of course demands identification of the targeted growth areas to begin with. And, of course, that targeted growth area needs to be identified to residents living within and nearby its boundaries. Please specify with map identification where these targeted growth areas are at. Programming the rezoning in these areas might well be a proposal which should be preceded by referendum or public study of sentiment or reaction to this proposal. Media identification of these areas with open discussion should be encouraged before programming the initiation of rezoning. P 28. Develop a process for County initiated State Land Use boundary reclassification. Comment: This, I believe is a State Commission responsibility. If it is County's impression that the State Commission is failing its responsibility then please point out where those failures have occurred. P 28 Amend the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code to allow Cluster Plan Developments to be applied to all zoning districts with appropriate building site standards. Comment: Please explain in detail the meaning of this directive. Explain what is a Cluster Plan Development. Explain why such a development cannot now be applied to all zoning districts with appropriate building site standards. Please explain what is special about Cluster Plan Developments that would argue that they should be allowed in any zoning district whereas a run-of-the-mill development might not be allowed in some zoning districts. P29 Amend the Zoning Code to allow for Planned Unit Development to become administrative permits and subject to the approval of the Planning Director Comment: There might be a reaction to this Draft General Plan that the thrust is toward acceleration of the process of development. With that perspective, and less than unanimity in endorsement by the public of this perspective, it would be most desirable that there would be County Council oversight applied to the enthusiasm of the Planning Department for all significant development, whether Planned Unit Developments or any other category of Development. If it is felt that the public would be supportive of this proposal then it should be subject to referendum rather than placed in the General Plan. P 59. Support the development of small scale visitor accommodations with heritage, agriculture, wellness or similar themes in rural areas and near points of interest. Comment: All public support for short term visitor rental accommodation should be removed other than in designated resort areas. P. 59. Provide flexibility in discretionary permit applications to maintain health and safety for rural small scale visitor accommodations not serviced by public infrastructure. Comment: All public support for short term visitor rental accommodations outside of resort areas should be removed.