My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
December 14 2021 Proposed Agenda
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Meeting Minutes
>
Planning
>
2020
>
December 14 2021 Proposed Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/9/2021 11:57:10 AM
Creation date
12/9/2021 11:56:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
12/14/2021
Board
Parks
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />November 9, 2021 <br />The Chair said it sounds like the applicant is in agreeance to do it. We just need to determine <br />something that is feasible for staff to be able to check, based upon weather and time. <br />He asked if there were anything else for Mr. Jansen at this time. There being nothing else he told <br />Mr. Jansen to have seat and if they had any more questions, they would call him back up. <br />The Chair asked if anyone else had anything to say. He said correct him if he is wrong, but he <br />thinks the strapping we have a hold of. It is just assuming that we will have to put on a condition <br />based on the email from yesterday. The other item is the roadway buffers. <br />He said Mr. Rockett has spoken, does anyone else have anything to say? <br />Mr. Pinto would want to see if the wild, natural trees do their thing, then we should just let them <br />run; red cedar is your friend. <br />The Chair said he travels Mount Pleasant Road three or four days per week. It is not trees, it is <br />weeds, sea grass, brush; it is not trees. His concern would be what is it going to do to what is <br />there? They are competing for the same space, same air, same water, and the same nutrients. Is <br />it going to kill stuff off or what? He understands his , but he is concerned. <br />Another thing is, we have a glare study that is related to that buffer. So, if it is not maintained, <br />what impact is it going to have to that glare study? Because if it takes out some planted <br />landscaping, how does that impact the glare study. The glare study is dependent upon that <br />vegetation being there. He understands that the vegetation has not reached its mature height per <br />the study, but it may not get there if we have stuff competing for it. <br />The Chair said Section 9.9, Landscaping and Buffer, in our Development Ordinance states: <br />Required landscaping must be maintained in a healthy, growing condition at all times. The <br />property owner is responsible for regular weeding, mowing of grass, irrigating, fertilizing, <br />pruning, and other maintenance of all plantings as needed. <br /> <br />The Chair said obviously not all of that applies, he does not think anyone is asking that they <br />irrigate, prune and fertilize, but it does say regular weeding. He feels like if the applicant <br />cleaned it up now, and we could get this closed, if it came back, then it came back. It has not <br />been maintained for almost three years. We need to make it where they are viable, where they <br />can thrive to get to where we have that undergrowth. That is what this would be is undergrowth, <br />but right now, it is not undergrowth it is competing for what is there. <br /> <br />Mr. Paxton asked if that is a question we need to ask of the applicant. <br /> <br />The Chair thinks so and he asked if anyone else had anything to say one way or another? <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.