Agenda - 11-01-1995 - X-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

t 16 SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL OCTOBER 11, 1994 At its October 11 meeting, the Planning Board provided the following comments regarding the staff proposal. • Current proposal gives bonus for protecting unbuildable land that would be protected anyway (Rosemond). • Need to find a compromise approach to open space that doesn't penalize people for having unbuildable land, but doesn't reward either. Emphasize quality open space. (Waddell, Rosemond, Hoecke). • Put OS uses into three categories of open space: • Unbuildable land • Otherwise buildable land • Intensive recreation • Develop a formula on how much of each type, along lines of current primary/secondary approach. Perhaps all of unbuildable, 25% of"otherwise buildable, some % of"intensive recreation". (Waddell) • Develop a weighting system for open space uses (Hoecke, Waddell). • One idea: concept of "matching" in open space types/uses. If 10 acres of unbuildable, another 10 acres of "otherwise buildable".(Burklin) • Need to devalue intensive recreational uses relative to others. (Rosemond, others?) • Fear that proposals have become too watered down, result will be that no one will choose flexible development. (Rosemond) • Need to focus not so much of amount or % of open space, but on ensuring that the open space is "quality" (Burklin - consensus agreement). • Use the Comprehensive Resource Map to prioritize and protect areas we want protected. Need to ensure that natural areas protected, and include best farmland as resource on map (Brown). • Do Small Area Plans in areas where interest exists or growth pressures warrant (Brown, Rosemond. Considerable discussion, members agreed SAP a useful tool, although Walters, Waddell and Burklin stated that some areas may not be appropriate and that whole County need not be addressed through SAP'S).