Cathy Sabre wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:45 pm
I think that appropriate and plausible work, but am not sure how you legislate something so subjective.
Welcome to the CDS (forum)
I think the big, big thing to look at would be impact -although we don't have much of a problem with that.
You can have a club on a residential parcel that draws in a lot of people and lag -say, for instance, a lodge style build. It would look just like a residence; but have the drawbacks (crowding, lag) of a commercial build.
I don't like this whole cut-in-stone black-and-white thing; I think it ought to be dealt with
on a case by case basis
as the need arises
with an eye more towards resource usage than on appearances.
We're a group of 64 people -20, 25 really (if you consider the folks that are active and involved) ...in many ways the governmental red tape is overkill for the number of folks we're dealing with.
And this is a great example of that -on top of policing theme (which I agree with and applaud) we're talking about policing usage too.
I say that until parcels are using up resources (causing lag etc) let it lie -and once they are, police that, not wether it's commercial or residential, urban or rural.
I remember 2005 and the horrible eye-sores of malls that would lag you out, I always felt like the covenant (with the residential/commercial zoning divides) was written at least in part as a reaction to that (as well, of course, as being a part of a model virtual government).
I don't feel that's what ought to be the primary consideration -excessive usage ought to be. (detirmining what that means and how to enforce that will give us more than enough work anyway!)