NSN ORD-1996-010 Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments - Flexible Development-Open Space Proposal

Browse Search

6 No decision- discussion only. 5. Interdepartmental coordination/communication. The specific issue is how- insure that adequate communication between County deprtments is established so that approvals by one department are not held up by the requirements of another. No decision-discussion only. 6. Development plan exceptions. The specific issue is whether allowing a developer to submit only a Flexible Development plan is discriminatory. No decision- discussion only. 7. Rural Buffer applicability. The specific issue is whether land within the Rural Buffer should be subject to the Flexible Development provisions. No decision-discussion only. 8. Open space percentage. The specific issue is whether the percentage of open space required (e.g., 33%) is too low. Planning Board Decision: That 33%be accepted as the minimum open space requirement. Vote: 7-4. 9. Exclusion of unbuildable land. The specific issue is whether floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes should be counted as open space because they are considered unbuildable. The alternative suggested is to apply the required open space percentage after subtracting such features from the total site area. Planning Board Decision: That unbuildable land be counted in determining the amount of open space; e.g., that open space would be calculated on the basis of the total tract area. Vote: 7-4. 10.Mandatory open space. The specific issue is whether the provision of open space should be voluntary or mandatory. Planning Board Decision: That the provision of open space be voluntary rather than mandatory. Vote: 10-1. 11. 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.