Agenda - 03-06-1996 - X-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

28 • 98 acres divided into 16 four-acre lots and 36 one-acre lots does not meet the objectives of rural character preservation. • Recreational (active) needs and conservation needs are different and should not be traded off against one another. The goals and objectives of rural character preservation do not advocate that open space design be the only mechanism for preserving rural character. Like Randall Arendt, the Rural Character Study Committee viewed open space design as "one tool in the tool box". Arendt recognizes purchase of development rights and transfer of development rights, as well as other options, as supporting elements to an area-wide program of conservation and development that is most logically based upon the flexibility and advantages offered by open space development design. Likewise, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board has recognized the linkage between these elements, supporting the Flexible Development proposal while recommending that the Board of Commissioners pursue enabling legislation through which to implement a transfer of development rights program. With regard to the illustrations above, the "98-acre" scenario may very well meet rural character preservation objectives if the 16 four-acre lots (and the house sites on each) are so located to preserve a scenic road corridor or are located within a wooded area. With respect to the issue of trade-offs, there have to be, otherwise nothing will be accomplished. As an example, a site covered equally by woodlands and farmland presents competing objectives. Housing units could be placed in the woodlands and the farmland preserved, or vice versa. As Arendt has noted, "politics" and "planning" represent the "art of the possible". The same flexibility built into the Flexible Development proposal must also exist in approaching the goals and objectives of rural character preservation. Incentives vs. disincentives. The specific issue is whether more disincentives should be added to discourage conventional development and fewer incentives provided to encourage more open space set asides. Staff Response. One concern is the increased density which may achieved through bonus provisions. The example given suggests that 100 acres of wetlands could be purchased in the northern part of the county and 100 units added (one unit for one acre) to a flexible development project. The example also suggests that 100 acres of wetlands is not much of a benefit for the added density going into rural areas. If one accepts the value of wetlands, then one realizes the benefit achieved through preserving 100 acres of wetlands. The example implies, however, that the additional density would be shifted to rural areas and does not recognize the locational standards governing bonus units. Such units could only be placed in one of the locations listed in Section IV-B-10-G.4, including: • Within Transition Areas designated in the Land Use Element, subject to a maximum permitted density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.