Minutes 05-26-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1. Receive the application, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board, and BOCC sworn testimony, 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting, and 4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation, and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Pelissier asked if Orange County would approve the alternative to the traditional septic, or would the State need to give approval. Michael Harvey said an email written by Alan Clapp, of Orange County Environmental Health, states that it would be reviewed jointly by the State and the County. However, depending on the nature of the system, it may defer to a total State approval. He added that if this were the case, the County would receive notification from the State that the septic system had been approved before any further development would be allowed. Commissioner Rich asked if any of the 32 properties will go in to the Community Home Trust for affordable housing. Michael Harvey said probably not, but recommended asking the Applicant. He added that he finds the metrics and economics of this project to be different than most, considering it will be based on a condominium ownership model. He said he believes that houses will be more affordable than most housing in the area. He added that it was not required of the Applicant to designate properties to the Trust. Commissioner Rich asked if there are conditions when it is required. Michael Harvey said in accordance with section 6.1.18 of the UDO, there is a process where a developer can request density bonuses. He reminded the Board that there is language within the regulations that prohibits density bonuses being awarded for affordable housing in watershed protection overlay districts, in which this project is. Commissioner Price asked if there would need to be additional screenings between homes as there is only 10 feet in between. She added as this is one big property, perhaps additional screenings may not apply. Michael Harvey said Commissioner Price is partially correct. He added that a home occupation would have to be applied for, in accordance with the applicable standards as they are relayed in the UDO. He said if additional screenings are required the owner will have to abide by the UDO. He said this problem is not anticipated. Commissioner Price said as this is one big property and has no property lines, there is nowhere from which to measure the 10 feet between the two houses. Michael Harvey said although there are no property lines, there will be a defined ownership area. He said this will not meet the technical definition of a property line, per the UDO, but additional landscaping may be required to comply with code. Commissioner Price said she liked the project and would not want to see it stumble based on technicalities.