Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends Sunny Days rezoning with proffer edits after buffer and parcel questions
Summary
Planning staff recommended approval of P-24-11 to rezone a parcel to M-1; the commission agreed to strike a generic buffer proffer (#2) and asked staff to clarify proffers #3 and #4 before forwarding the case to the Board of Supervisors.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The planning commission recommended approval of rezoning case P-24-11 (Sunny Days Development & Property Management, LLC) to rezone a subject parcel from R-1 Residential Limited to M-1 Industrial Limited with proffers, but with a staff-directed amendment to clarify and tailor the proffers to the parcel configuration. The commission voted unanimously to forward the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors with a directive to strike proffer #2 and instruct staff to refine proffers #3 and #4 prior to Board review.
Staff explained that many of the proffers attached to the application were copied from a 1997 rezoning for parcels that front Airport Road and that some language (50-foot setbacks, 50-foot landscape buffer along side/rear, chain-link fencing) may not precisely fit the single, landlocked tax parcel currently before the commission. Commissioner discussion focused on ensuring that buffer and fencing requirements are assigned to the correct adjoining tax-map parcels and that the proffers reflect the applicant’s ownership of nearby lots. The applicant, Carl Johnson (Sunny Days), told the commission he owns the two lots in front and will “connect the whole thing,” said he liked the idea of providing a fence and buffer, and expressed willingness to work with staff to ensure the proffers are applicable.
A public question from Kevin Anderson (5325 Ironbridge Road) asked about the location of a proposed entrance and whether access could cross his property; staff confirmed that access arrangements could use adjacent parcels and that a follow-up map clarification is appropriate. The commission’s motion struck proffer #2 and asked staff to clarify 3 and 4; the roll call recorded six members voting in favor of the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
