Minutes - 19770228 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1G8 These standards conform to the Health Department's requirements. Page 14, Section "Land Suitability", this is a new section to be added to the Ordinance. The section proposed one suitable site for building on each lot. The Planning soard, or other agencies will investi- gate flood prone areas, soil drainage, drainage patterns, slope, historic sites, unique natural areas. The Planning Department maintains maps of these areas within the County. Mr. Minis pointed out that this section did not mean that should these problems exist, a subdivision would not be approved, but that the Planning Department and agencies weuld work with the developer to passible rearrange lot lines, and work to solve some of the problems, if possible. Discussion ensued. ... One suggestion was made to designate on the plat of a subdivision which lots are unsuitable for building. -• Commissioner Willhoit stated that he felt the working, as used in the proposed Ordinance, was the intent of the Subcommittee, so that lots would not be created, which could not be suitable for building. Dr. Bonar stated that the purpose of the sketch plan was to provide information to determine if the lot is suitable for the plan in mind. Further discussion ensued concerning this section of land suitability. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he felt the Ordinance had built into it an attempt for flexibility. The Subcommittee had attempted to indicate criteria around which a developer could design a subdivision and take in account the conditions of the land. Mr. Beemer stated that the way he read the Ordinance, a developer would not be able to develop any lots within a subdivision if one lot was not suitable fox use. The County Attorney was asked to express his opinion on the sentence f IV-B-2 (Land Suitability) which reads "Each lot of a subdivision shall contain at least one site which is suitable for development." Mr. Gledhill - stated that if the entire section concerning Land Suitability was read, the last sentence was clear, however, it appeared that the sentence was __ being taken out of contexts. He added that this section would be clearer if the statement was added to the Ordinance that lots unsuitable for building should be so stipulated on the plat. The question was asked if the new regulations would speed up the time for developing a subdivision. Mr. Edwards replied that the regulations may not speed up the process, however, when these recommendation are followed, the developer would have no doubt about the use of the lots. He added that land with problems would take additional time for approval. An opinion was expressed by a developer from the County, that a builder should serve on the Planning Board in order to provide input from the developer's point of view. Another citizen stated that land could have a valid use other than for buildings, such as T.V, towers, parking lots, tennis courts, etc., and that these uses should be spelled out in the Ordinance. The next seciton of the Ordinance discussed was the section "buffer strip" on page l9. This new seciton proposes that a buffer strip be at __ leaset 25 feet adjacent to Railroads, industrials uses, limited access highways, critical areas of the natural environment, and agricultural areas. Mr. Minis stated that this buffer could be in the form of trees or fences. He added that in some areas, a buffer zone would be part of the set back requirements. Page 2Q, "Stormwater Management". The old Ordinance required a plan to remove stormwater as approved by the Department of Transportation. The new proposal required a plan consistant with objectives to minimize runoff, prevent local flooding, and protect natural drainage ways. These objectives are consistant with the County Sediment Control Ordinance. Mrs. Josephine Barbour asked a question concerning the Land Suitability section - IV-B-2. She read the last sentence on Page 14, "The proposal shall be evaluated for the potential impairment of habitat of rare and endangered