Agenda - 04-01-1996 - IX-D - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

s 7 Planning Board Decision: That the incentives included in the Flexible Development proposal be retained, at least for the first year to determine their effectiveness. Vote: 8-3. 12.Village option. The specific issue is whether to hold another public hearing on the Village option, since it is complicated and has not received a lot of attention. Planning Board Decision: That the Village Option be removed from the Flexible Development proposal, be elaborated on, and be sent back to public hearing as soon as possible. Vote: 6-5. 13. Conservation easement credit. The specific issue is whether land protected through a conservation easement prior to development application can be counted toward satisfying the open space requirement. Planning Board Decision: That conservation easements, the terms of which are consistent with the Flexible Development guidelines in effect at that time, be allowed to count as credit toward open space. Vote: 9-2. 14.Minor subdivision applicability. The specific issue is whether to make Minor Subdivisions subject to the Flexible Development standards. Planning Board Decision: That the Flexible Development requirements not apply to minor subdivisions but that applicants be encouraged by staff to use the options in the submission of the single required plat. Vote: 8-1. 15. Consistency with goals. The specific issue is whether the Flexible Development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of rural character preservation. No decision-discussion only. REPORT -BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 3/6/96 MEETING: At its March 6, 1996 meeting, the Board of Commissioners offered the following comments. Staff comments are provided in(italics). • A "yield plan" may not be necessary if a developer is not planning to maximize the number of lots in a subdivision.(Staff agrees) • Affordable housing projects should fall under the Flexible Development standards. (This is consistent with the Planning Boards recommendation)