Meeting 091495 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the Board of Commissioners. ;after the Preliminat�y Plan is approved by the ccai�A C + Commissioners ;t;,,. returned to the Planning Board � r their final recon�iiriendation i:o L1�e Commissioners. The Board of Commissioner then vote on ap prcvai. This approval lists all 4 conditions ,\which the de\ /eloper must ad1dra mss. The final stage o` ass Liring that the conditions are, 0 met is handled by the Planning staff. In response "'o a series oi: questions, Nlanr "I at 7 actual n +_it -nbe.r of lots approved will be fewer than presented on these Concept Plans.. 3 the land itself will determine what it will support and what will be approved 9 these proposed lots range in size from one to two and one-half acres 10 these are all conventional development proposals i regulations forbid building in the flood plan but that portion of ?he land can be used as 2 eusen gents. Hood Plains are identified in the Inventory. 13 density could not !�e officially transferred, however, the owners could work together to create the 14 same effect. 15 a parkland payment -in -lies i mon,c;� is deposited in a r3oun y' ft,in,d for i_;se in the area of the County in 16 which it actually originated. 17 a lots could include land identified as in the flood plain but it would have to be a part of the -18 easement and could not be used for building. �I I r. st 1 out '10r 'the 1- -leap � cia t � -and, te':��yd for moil s it.,,.-,bilitl fo sep.tic 19 � Its i'i�lNu�S`t�niJE�j�tat�ptid rJ!a�.�i;�ui i.h[^�:. �gF^.�ai�ii �P�.,czi ��n% t�.-., ;-� systems s U'lhe � the Prelim i ii1na J i ican i., approve.--!. 21 a traffic impact study is required when the 30th lot is created. 22 a u-se of off -site septic easements could be considered for portions of this land,.however, most of 23 it is in the lower Eno Watershed and septiceasements are prohibited. 24 Curtis Bane indicated that the Concept Plans could loon something like the-neo- traditional 25 plan when actually built. However, he stated that probably only 1 �7 out of 100 acres would perk. 26 Bob Strayhorn agreed that aftar soil testing thie plans would be gUite different.. 27 Bob Hail indicated that he hoped that nothing is si_Iggested 11 I L �i� s.. l . ei i��E� ii "31 } r 4 ,� .l_, 3 28 development in what is supposed to be the rural pat L U ii I• 29 David Yelton mentioned that Density Neutral was intended to mean what an arena w01_111-JI 3o support with individual septic and weii for each lot. It is important to determine what will be 31 supported so that it is clear what is meant by the term density neutral. Thp riPfini,in�i nr riN;-i -qil npi fr-�l in the ,tnney Creep a in -nai lea �lan rann�-t was read J. 33 by Meg McKean as follows " densty/ neutral refers to 500/0 of the buildable land as undivided 34 permanent open space The same number of houses are built as permitted under existing zoning 35 but they ai 36 REViEW OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES: Verla irsko indicated that Gene Bell would briefly review the 37 development alternatives and then comments would be solicited from the Planning Group. 38 CGNVE "rI IONAL_DEVELOPMENT :_ Gene Sell briefly reviewed the option. He mentioned the 39 Grange County soil survey and identified the areas where there would probably be difficulty with the 40 soil. After some discussion of Map g it was suggested and agreed to 'use Map 10 for the review of 41 the Conventional Development. The following comments were made regarding positive elements of 42 this plan: 43 • Thea Wilson read Dean� Lehnder'S� E lrll~nelnl He 111KelJ that the development �Jpie is wel! 44 established and the outcorne can bo anticipated. 'What he disliked was that natural and visual 45 resources would be lost. 46 4 Kim Price felt that the visual or rural (QESOUrce was preserved with the larger lots.