Agenda - 09-02-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

indicated that the houses that will be built -adjacent to the Duke Forest. 083 property will be across a ravine and not actually -abutting the property. There was a consensus to continue the public hearing to June 17 tee receive the Recreation and Parks recommendation -and an update from the . Health Department on the soil studies. 4 . SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS (Copies of the proposed amendments are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . Planner Susan Smith presented for the receipt of public comment proposed text amendments to the Subdivision regulations. These amendments are in response to concerns identified by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Planning Staff concerning cluster development provisions, recreation standards and landscaping and buffer provisions. The proposed ordinance amendments, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendments. a. Section IV Sub-section IV-B-5 Lot Layout (Cluster Developments) b. Section II Definitions (Cluster Development.). The staff presentation was made by Planner Susan Smith. Commissioner Marshall commented that in IV-B-5--e it states "An approved preliminary subdivision plan shall provide for a total environment better than . . ." and stated she felt the work better to be subjective and quanitative and ask that it be more specific. Also the verbage in IV--B-5-e--g indicating small and isolated needs to be subjective. She questioned IV-B-5-e-c which states "Cluster open space - shall include irreplaceable natural features such as, but not limited to, . . . . " and asked if this was a requirement of the developer or is it only included when applicable. Smith indicated it is only included when applicable. .IV-B-5-f--b states "A detailed description . . ." and asked that detailed be changed to precise. Commissioner Carey questioned IV--B-5--d-b and asked to what extent conform to the proposals under consideration for reservation of open space for recreational purposes. Smith noted that these area would be required to be dedicated. c. Section IV Sub-Section IV-B-7 - Recreation Standards Marvin Collins outlined the changes in this Section. thhat have been made from the first proposal. . He pointed out that the proposed Ordinance amendment would only apply to major subdivisions having five lots or more. Section IV-B-7B--1 makes clear the mandatory dedication provisions. The concept of the Ordinance is to secure recreational land first, and if that is not possible, then secure payment-in-lieu, and to require that either the dedication or the payment-in-lieu be absolutely manatory. the distinction of which method will be utilized comes from the Land Use Plan of the County whether park lands are shown on the plan or not. Section IV-B--7B-2 establishes the 1/35th acre per dwelling unit to be provided in the subdivision. The only exception would be if the developer wishes to dedicate flood plain land or land with slopes more than 150, then the amount would be 1/20th of an acre per dwelling.. Section IV-B-7B- 3 allows recreational land on the borders of peoperty, should that be the most efficient area to use for that and adjoining subdivisions. Section IV-B--7B--4 requires that any private recreational facilities that a developer might wish to establish above the amount required by the County have the same quality standards as required by the Ordinance. Regarding the method of dedication, Section IV--B--7B•-5 provides for a conveyance to a home owners association for a private recreation facility. Section IV-B_ 7B-6, payments-in-lieu of dedication, a formula based on tax assessment