Cumberland County supervisors narrowly rejected a recommendation from the planning commission recently that would have required a “reasonable” buffer around expanding business adjacent to residential properties.

District One Supervisor Bill Osl and District Four Supervisor David Meinhard supported the measure, while District Two Supervisor Lloyd Banks, District Five Supervisor Parker Wheeler and District Three Supervisor Kevin Ingle opposed the measure.

While rejecting the recommendation, the board agreed to send the matter back to the planning commission for further consideration.

“Where a zoning permit is for expansion (over 50 percent of building area) or redevelopment (tear down and rebuilding) of a commercial use, the scale drawing shall show how vegetation, landscaping, fencing or other means shall provide for a reasonable buffer to any adjacent residential properties,” the rejected code amendment stated.

“The planning commission had received comments from a few concerned citizens regarding expansions or rebuilds at older commercial uses,” said County Zoning Administrator and Planning Director Sara Carter. “Usually, these uses were permitted with no restrictions or conditions as to size or intensity. Newer commercial uses are usually zoned with some stipulation as to size, or with adherence to a concept plan.”

She said the concern was that an older commercial use “can end up at a much greater level of intensity than what was originally permitted, with no buffer or transition to adjacent residential uses.”

“I communicated to the board and the county administration that I would be very uncomfortable with a government ordinance requiring a business to comply with whatever an employee deems as ‘reasonable,’” said Banks, who opposed the measure. “Thankfully the majority realized that government regulations should be quantitative, clear, specific and fair to all parties and especially expanding businesses that we so desperately need. Jobs in the county are hard to find, and the last thing we need is to restrict businesses any further than we already have.”

“My thought was that we have a zoning administrator who would first make the decision of what your planned buffers are, were they reasonable or not,” said Meinhard.

“If you disagreed with her determination of what was reasonable, you had the right to appeal it to the planning commission and then if you were not satisfied with their decision, you could appeal it to the board of supervisors.”

Meinhard said he thought the commission’s recommendation was reasonable.

“The commission wrestled with the same philosophical issue that the board discussed,” Carter said.

“Is it better to have more general language, or more specific language? The commission recommended general, but converting the language to a more specific approach will not be a challenge as they have discussed these at length already.”