Applicant seeks buffer reduction in PD modification; hearing examines 'existing' 5‑ft buffer vs. 20‑ft requirement
A major modification to an existing PD proposed reducing a 20‑foot Type B buffer to a 5‑foot existing buffer along a southern boundary; county staff and the hearing master pressed the applicant to explain why the 2019 approval's buffer was not installed and whether the reduced buffer is supportable for Option A (no redevelopment) versus Option B (redevelopment).
The full story
Nicole McInnis, presenting a major modification to PD19‑1421, described two options: Option A would retain existing buildings and site layout while Option B would allow redevelopment with updated site improvements. The applicant seeks a variation to maintain an existing 5‑foot southern buffer in lieu of the 20‑foot Type B buffer required under the 2019 PD conditions. McInnis said the site contains buildings constructed before 2019 and that the 5‑foot buffer derives from an earlier site plan "built under a previous code."
Sign up to keep reading.
Your free newsletter brings you what your city council, county, and school board discussed and decided.
Keep reading for free
Create a free account to finish this story and see the video, transcript and key details.
Continue with GoogleContinue with emailAlready have an account? Log in