Minutes - 20030825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

b. Amend Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance and Section II and III of the Subdivision Regulations to create a special use permit process that sets special use standards and location criteria for subdivision size (number of lots) based on zoning district and service areas identified in the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Map. Craig Benedict gave a PowerPoint presentation. He showed a map of the entire County. He said that in May 2042, the Planning Board expressed concern about the amount of development activity in the rural sections of the County. The existing regulations may not have been able to address the impacts upon the rural environment. The County Commissioners and the Planning Board asked the staff to investigate other manners of reviewing subdivisions in these areas that could address the impacts. Through a series of meetings, a special use process was discussed to review subdivisions. It has been suggested that subdivisions over a certain size would go through this special use process. He pointed out the areas on a map where growth would be promoted. In the urban areas of the County, subdivisions would follow a process based on the size, as follows: 6-19 lots would follow the same process that exists now; 20-40 lots would follow the process of a class A special use permit; 41-79 lats would require a more strict analysis; and 80+ lots would require a rezoning process (planned development}. In the rural areas of the County, there is a different threshold number. Again, 6-19 lots would follow the same major subdivision process. A class A special use permit would be needed far 20-40 lats, and planned development would be used far 41+ lots. Craig Benedict showed four different growth management options on different maps. Option four includes the greatest amount of land. If there were a planned development subdivision (40+ in the rural area or 80+ in the urban area}, then it would be presented at a quarterly public hearing with the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners would hear public input and refer it to the Planning Board, which would make a recommendation back to the County Commissioners far a decision. Commissioner Gardon made reference to the process and said that she is concerned that this approach seems to do two things at once -1} we are trying to improve the subdivision process sa that there is a higher standard of performance for larger developments and 2} we are basically changing the map. She said that it is not as logical as what she thought the process was supposed to be. She would like to leave the comprehensive plan and zoning plan alone, and focus on trying to improve the subdivision process. Commissioner Jacobs asked far information on subjective cut-off sizes for the different threshold sizes. He would like to see some real examples to see what impacts there actually are that led the staff to these numbers. He also asked about the current thinking of pursuing updating the comprehensive land use plan. Craig Benedict said that this is a procedural and standard process and these amendments do not have any linkage to comprehensive land use planning density changes. He said that they are suggesting an outreach proposal using a facilitation firm to propose some changes to the overall plan of the County. This will be coming back to the Board for approval soon. Regarding the