Meeting 030496 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Versa: We're trying to get through the document and it seems sonic parts need to be revisited. Bob: Thinks that if someone develops recreational open space the FDO rules should apply in the yellow area. Lee: What that means is that we (group) never needed to exist. Versa: We're arguing positions. If the proposal won't work then we need to try to identify others that might achieve goals, but need to look at options instead of just arguing positions. Elio: Think what Lee was saying lie wants us to recognize is that we had a goal of rural character and as Versa was saving this may not be the most suitable way to approach it, but he cannot adhere to a document that will emphasize only land value and not rural character which was part of the equation. We want Lee in our corner. Dan: If we're going to discuss six let's do it, if not let's move on. Group: Let's move on and come back to six if time permits. Item 7 Curtis: What is expedited review, Gene: The minor subdivision process would come the closest to it. It's where a person is doing five lots or less and all of the review and approval takes place in the Planning Department. It doesn't have to go to the Planning Board or Countv Commissioners or any public meetings or hearings. Whereas, if you do more than five lots, it has to go to the Planning Board twice and to the Countv Commissioners at least one time and takes months and months. Dan: Seems that some type of expedited review is clearly an incentive, but when proposal is sent to Planning Board it clearly needs to be identified what expedited review and approval is tied to as opposed to just saying expedited review is good. Clint: Feel that we need to see design guidelines before finalizing things. Bob: What brought this about is that there is a lot of land being developed in the County in 10.01 acre lots to bypass subdivision regulations. It evidently saves a lot of time and expense. Of course, when you get in an area where land values are much higher its harder to do that and make it work and that's the reason the subcommittee was talking about encouraging large lots (though not 10 acres). Personally, he is more interested in having less people on the land rather than to have incentives to see how many more you can get on the land. Elio: Then why don't we take Meg's suggestion that if you leave 70% open space it entitles you to a speedy process. Dan: Would be a third category under item five specifically tying expedited review to something. Curtis: Thinks incentives should start at 3' )%. Versa: If there aren't enough incentives for Curtis to preserve 33% open space then he can build under the current option. So, we have an incentive that addresses 50% and what we're looking for is an incentive that would make somebody want to preserve 70 %. Bob: And we probably won't know what that is until we adopt something and see if it works. If people don't use it, it must be flawed, but it won't hurt anybody. Elio: This is the criteria we should use. If something doesn't hurt, doesn't punish, doesn't affect options, then it is an incentive. 7