Laserfiche WebLink
<br />HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - November 22, 2000 <br /> <br />Page: 2 <br /> <br />Commissioner Harpole suggested that while the County will not try to overrule covenants, he believes <br />the County should at least have the ability to recognize them. <br /> <br />There was discussion about the need to revise the zoning code in the Unified Development Code (UDC) <br />to provide for explicit rather than implicit direction. A question was whether the County would specify <br />in the UDC that an off-site drain field crossing zoning boundaries is a conditional use. If so, then a <br />process needs to be set for considering it. <br /> <br />Larry Fay proposed documenting some objectives so the Board can see processes and make sure this <br />policy would be clear. He noted that when the County did the Comprehensive Plan, including an <br />analysis of the commercial land requirements in the County, it assumed an on-site sewage system. If the <br />County suddenly starts going off-site with sewage, it increases the commercial capacity of the land. <br /> <br />Commissioner Huntingford said if the land is in the Urban Growth Area (UGA) zone and there is a <br />desire to increase the commercial capacity, then maybe off-site community drain fields are appropriate. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wojt said he would find it helpful for the Board of Health to make a recommendation on this <br />issue to the Board of County Commissioners. <br /> <br />Member Westerman supported the addition oflanguage in the UDC to reflect what she understood to be the <br />Board's desire to keep commercial uses and commercial drain fields within the zoning boundary. Exceptions <br />may be sought through an appeal process where people can apply for a conditional use permit. <br /> <br />There was general agreement that the zoning code needs to explicitly state that an off-site drain field <br />crossing a zoning boundary is a conditional use. <br /> <br />Commissioner Harpole suggested that there may be merit to looking at conditional use and an appeal process <br />including notification of adjacent property owners. <br /> <br />There was general support for reviewing the applicable UDC section and talking to the planners about the <br />Board's concerns and vision. <br /> <br />Larry Fay said his recollection of the court's decision hinged on the fact that the Planning Department said <br />it is not allowed under zoning. The Board exercised its authority on the on-site sewage regulation based on <br />the zoning code. He recommended the Board deal with the public health and technical issues of the on-site <br />sewage regulation and make sure the policy is clear and predictable for both the County and the applicant. <br />The planners would then handle the rural centers and urban growth boundaries and address how intensely <br />owners can develop their property. He also believes that when we are looking for consistency between health <br />and planning policies, where possible, Health Department policies should not promote sprawl. He agreed <br />to relay to the Planning Department the Board's discussion. <br />