Minutes - 19761019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~~ =~ •: 15 percent slope, and all of this is the second questions which is mainly an evaluation of some of the administrative aspects, and whether or not we are administratively pexpaxed to deal with these things and if not, recommend what we need to administrate." Commissioner Gustaveson continued, "to start discussion, T would like that we go on record with some indication that the document does generally speak to the objectives that this Board is concerned about and that we not throw out the suggested amendments, but that we use this as a fairly close to our objectives as far as what we are trying to do. In other words, these amendments as they are now written are close to what we would like to see in final print. I would qualify this in terms ,of some of the questions I think could be worked on that would not destroy the general intention of the document. This again is -- what I said at the work session. I think that'it really is three points that can be looked at in terms of the numbers. My own feeling is in talking with people and in meeting the l5 percent slope could probably be eliminated without xeally doing serious damage to the amendments. I think the question of 5 acre lots could be looked at very seriously and, perhaps have a bit more that might allow fox performance criteria in a smaller lot size, and this, of course, would have to be worked out in terms of how it could be administered. At least it would allow flexi- bility within the residential conservation setback. That would allow for lots of less than 5 acres that could meet certain performance stan- dards and, three, that the number of buffers for the conservation dist- ric:ts, that number might be looked at. So, in terms of the three numbers, technical numbers,.Iwould add to my general." Chairman Garrett interrupted by asking, "axe you saying use that amendment as a starting point? Use the present document?" Commissioner Gustaveson replied, "use that amendment, the different districts and then take a look at the three numbers that are presently in the document which, t think is where a lot of the debate is centering, are on those three numbers, plus the other concern that 2 have, in that, it was soma raised at the public hearing regarding some of the adminis- trative procedures that I think we need to xeally take a serious look at how much new administrative Kassel that we are building into the document, and whether or not this is absolutely necessary, and also in a sense of coordinating with this whether or not we are prepared at this point administratively to deal with the...." Chairman Garrett again interrupted Commissioner Gustaveson and further discussion ensued. Commissioner Walker stated, "I think it would be a goad idea to take a broader look. Now by your own admission Norm, in our last meeting you said we were going about this backwards. Let's start out with the same ideas that we started with in the beginning and let the Planning staff go into the community. Let them go into Eno Community. Talk to the people in that area and find out what they want and let the Planning staff tell them what sort of framework they can work within and this is the policy we started out with, Norm, and we left that policy when the Board began to put all this imput in as to what they as individuals wanted. We are forgetting that we are for the people and we want what the people want. LE~t the people help plan. This was the policy of this Planning staff when we hired it and this has been Irvin Dobson's conten- tion all along to have citizen imput into it and we've taken it away from the citizens and I think the two public hearings that we've had is definite proof that they just did not like what we had come up with. They did not have the proper imput into it and we have moved along too fast and I think we've done the whole planning program an injustice and it is going to take a long time to overcome the damage that we have done. -- So, let's start over again like we started in the beginning and start right, and let the planning, we've got the experts here, the planners to do a job so let's let them perform. We are not letting them perform. We've had them to come up with a program that we couldn't support and they couldn't support wholeheartly and we've fended them to a crowd that was vicious to them and I think we've done them a terrible injustice and then to sit back and brag on what a good job they have done. You know, if you ask those people that we met down there in the public hear- ing they would say we've done a terrible job and matter of fact, some of them said it, and it's because they did not have imput into it. We talk about citizens imput, now let's exercise citizen imput and that's the kind of discussion that I would like to have."