Agenda - 04-17-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i 7 -1 cannot be left entirely to the builder to market these homes for sale to low- income 2 households. The county also needs to address that issue. 3 4 In response to a question from Reid, Scearbo indicated that improvements could be made 5 to the home, however, if the home were sold during the 15 year period it would need to 6 be sold to a qualifying household regardless of improvements /additions which might have 7 been made to the home by the owner. 8 9 Waddell asked for clarification cf the definition of income. The consensus was that 10 HUD guidelines would be used to determine eligibility. This point will be clarified in 11 the amendment. 12 13 A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to 14 refer these items to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned to the Board 15 of Commissioners no sooner than April 2nd. 16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 17 18 3. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 19 20 a. Section III -D-1 -b Planning Department Review Procedures 21 This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was 22 presented to receive citizen comment on a proposal to provide adequate time for staff 23 review of major subdivision Concept Plans. Current Subdivision Regulation time limits 24 do not always allow sufficient time for staff review of major subdivision concept plans. 25 The proposed amendment would assure a minimum time period of 30 days between project 26 submittal and its presentation to the Planning Board. 27 28 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Or COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD. 29 30 7- Commissioner Marshall indicated that when time is added onto the process at one point, 31 consideration needs to be given to taking an equal amount of time off at a later point 32 - in the process. 3 34 TH= PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT 36- =;s Larry Blalock, a resident of Cedar-Grove ,- indicated that he opposed adding time to this F. 37— process. He pointed out that- adding time also-adds to the cost- of. housing. 38 Cathy Carroll also requested that time not be added. to this process . =_• 41 A motion was made by- Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to -�42.- refer this to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of 43-- Commissioners no sooner than April 2nd. = 44 - - 4$___.. - -._ b.T Section IV -8 -8 -e Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers— .46 - This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. In summary this.item was 47 presented to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments tv Section IV -c -$ of the -48 Subdivision Regulations, Landscaping and Buffer Requirements. Two amendments are proposed 49 iFor Section IV -E -8 of the Subdivision Regulations. The first involves interpretation of 50 the Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers as it applies to subdivisions in the unzoned- -~ 51 - townships. The second amendment to Section IV -S -8 will clarify the purpose of the buff er_ - 52 waiver provisions and extend the scope of IV -E -8 -9 to include waivers for other landscape