Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board debates scope of Cedar Street mixed‑use district and public‑notice changes
Summary
Members debated whether Cedar Street Mixed Use should extend inland, discussed statutory notice changes under 160D and possible zoning text fixes (a 'CSMU‑A' sibling district and cleanup of 'Cedar Street front setback' language), and considered the planning board’s advisory role and next steps for the UDO rewrite.
Board members used the rezoning hearing to press broader policy questions about the Cedar Street Mixed Use (CSMU) district and the planning board’s role in shaping how far mixed‑use standards should reach from the main corridor.
Several members said they worry about creating an "island" of CSMU surrounded by single‑family homes and about the precedent of allowing taller buildings and lower parking inland from Cedar Street. One member said the permitted‑use list for CSMU includes uses "that I find that's clear. I would not live beside," expressing concern about compatibility with adjacent residential lots.
Kyle (staff) and the board discussed procedural constraints created by a change in state law (referenced in the transcript as "160D"). Kyle said the town stopped sending pre‑planning‑board rezoning notices when the statute changed and noted the board’s hearings are now livestreamed (the town posts meetings on Facebook Live) to increase public access. Legal staff present outlined that the board’s role is partly technical (subdivision/ plat checks) and partly legislative when considering rezonings; they advised the board that any conditions or refusals should be tied to the required findings in the LDO so the Board of Commissioners can weigh the recommendation against legal standards.
Members proposed options to address map and standard inconsistencies: 1) creating a new sibling district ("Cedar Street Mixed Use A") that would be used for future rezonings with adjusted standards while avoiding down‑zoning of existing property, and 2) cleaning up the district table language that currently reads "Cedar Street front setback" so it clearly indicates a district front setback rather than literal frontage on Cedar Street. Staff said the UDO rewrite process would be an appropriate venue to address larger design and district concerns.
The discussion closed with the board moving on to other business and adjourning; staff will follow up on procedural questions and the potential map language fixes.
