Agenda - 04-17-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

r 6 ~ 4 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 resoonse to a question from Reid, Scearbo indicated that imorovdments could be ma be 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 ha ,,e 7 been made to the home by the owner. 8 9 Waddell asked for clarification of 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. ;2 a. Section III -D-1 -b Planning Department Review Procedures 13 A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by 14 refer these items to the Planning Board for reco=endations 15 of Commissioners no sooner than April 2nd. 16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS is 17 do not always allow sufficient time for staff review of major subdivision concept plarls. 18 3. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 19 26 Commissioner Halkiotis, to to be returned to the Board` 20 105W00 a. Section III -D-1 -b Planning Department Review Procedures 21 This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item as 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 lim is 24 do not always allow sufficient time for staff review of major subdivision concept plarls. 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 OUSSTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM TH "c,SDARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD. 29 30 Commissioner Marshall indicated that when time is added onto the process at one oci t, 31 consideration needs to be given to taking an equal amount of time off at a later point 32 in the process. 33 34 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT 35 36 Larry Blalock, a resident of Cedar Grove, indicated that he opposed adding time to this 37 process. He pointed out that adding time also adds to the cost of housing. 38 39 Cathy Carroll also requested that time not be added to this process. 40 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 Boarc of 43 Co=issioners.no sooner than April 2nd. 44 45 b. Section IV -B -E -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 to Section IV -E -8 of the 48 Subdivision Regulations, Landscaping and Buffer Requirements. Iwo amendments are prop sed 49 for Section IV -6 -8 of the Subdivision Regulations. The first involves interpretatio of. 50 the Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers as it applies to subdivisions in the unz ned 51 townships. The second amendment to Section IV -B -8 will clarify the purpose of the buffer 52 waiver provisions and extend the scope Of Iv -B -8 -9 to include waivers for other landscaae