|
Sections Opinion County Obituaries Wandering Minds Announcements Classifieds Legal Notices Crime Blotter Off The Wall School System EC District Office School Board Strom Thurmond Fox Creek High School News Student News Public Offices Edgefield County Edgefield Johnston Trenton Public Forums To enter you must read our Terms of Service Pundits Neal Bortz Townhall.com National Review Online The New Republic Add your online favorite by e-mailing it to us here. News links Edgefield Advertiser Aiken Standard North Augusta Star The State Augusta Chronicle Atlanta Journal United Press Associated Press FOX News Reuters CNS News WorldNet Daily Newsmax Drudge Report GoogleNews Yahoo!News New York Times New York Post Los Angeles Times Washington Times Washington Post |
Edgefield
County Planning Commission hears from property owners in zoning debate Edgefielddaily.com web posted March 10, 2005 Staff reporting The Edgefield County Planning Commission held their regular March meeting tonight and suspended the meeting in order to have a work session that included an open forum with property owners and residents of the county. At issue was the proposed zoning of While continuing his coverage of the allowed and disallowed uses Gibson stated mobile homes would be allowed. Noting, however, that as far as restrictions go, “We ( Guy Mueller explained the non-allowed use and the meaning of CAFO’s (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) in which animals, chickens, cows, pigs and the like are brought in and kept in confined feeding areas then shipped out for processing. Mueller stated this did not apply to animals kept in pastures. When asked if they could restrict CAFO’s without zoning he said, “sure”. Gibson responded to questions from the floor on buffer zones and residential areas stating, “There would be no buffer required in residential areas, only commercial”. Mr. Gibson explained that any commercial development that bordered a residential property would require buffer zones, “but not commercial by commercial”. Bill McBride asked why the plan was ending at County Councilman Joel Hudson questioned the lot sizes for homes and was satisfied when the requirements were minimal. Resident David Hare stood for comments and stated what many had suggested, “this looks like all you are trying to do is protect Mount Vintage,” which was echoed with “amen’s” and other audible agreeing comments. The first meeting regarding the Sweetwater Road zoning was protecting Mount Vintage as stated by chairman James “Fab” Burt at that meeting. That was denied during the work session. Wayne Raiford stated he, “would like to see property owners in the area have a chance to give written input or a form to fill out,” showing support or opposition if it would be possible. The commission stated they thought that was a good idea and would see to it that they get some sort of form and would mail it to all property owners in the area. Commission chairman James Burt took an impromptu polling of the 37 in attendance as to support for the proposal and received only three showing support, two of which were developers. Another question was asked of commission member Bernadette Hudson as to if the "majority of replies of property owners returned did not support the proposal, would that be used in their decision?" As the meeting ended Howard Gibson stated the commission probably would not bring the issue up again until their May meeting. The Planning Commission meets the second Thursday of every month. Gibson stated he was pleased to see so many in attendance and said he would like to see this type of turnout for all meetings. "Most of the time we meet we are up here and staring at empty chairs," he said. Related Stories: Zoning issue stirs anger towards county Zoning Uses in proposed Sweetwater Zoning Return to
Headlines
Contact us All original material is property of Edgefield Daily.com and cannot be reproduced or distributed without the expressed written permission of Edgefield Daily.com |
Advertisements
|
| Contact us: Editor |
|
|
 |