Meeting 111695 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 Bob Hall asked for clarification of the words "economically feasible." David Yelton felt it could not be defined in the vision statement. They were acknowledging that landowners need to be compensated for the value of their land and wanted to encourage the protection of commonly agreed upon areas. Bob Strayhorn agreed that the issues of economic and financial feasibility are critical ones for the landowner. He mentioned that the word "assuring" in the third bullet needs to be reconsidered. Dan Teichman asked if the subcommittee was suggesting that the existing guidelines be used or would new criteria be developed. Did the subcommittee feel that there was insufficient criteria for identification of natural features and sensitive ecological areas? A member of the subcommittee stated that they wanted to facilitate the preservation of visual elements of the area without requiring landowners to suffer economically. During the course of this conversation, Emily Cameron created a list of comments for the Vision Subcommittee to review. Those comments are: • Elaborate on compatible vs. Incompatible (uses /densities). • What is "Limited, internally oriented commercial ?" How is it compatible? • Edit "economically feasible" to make rural character preservation and maintain property values equal. • Edit "Assuring... protection" of natural resources. • Alternate vision with italics? REPORT OF THE VALUE SUBCOMMITTEE: This committee consisted of James Bumphus, Bob Hall, Meg McKean, Lee Rafalow, Elio Soldi and Bob Strayhorn. The following comments were made concerning this report. Dean Zehnder commented that paragraph #3 of the proposal did not apply to the Stoney Creek area because the periphery is not urban in character. The word urban conflicts with his vision of the area. Lee Rafalow mentioned that the Land Use Plan already identifies areas as "Urban Growth Areas ". Paragraph 3 of the proposal means that we are looking for ways to direct all dense development into those already identified as urban areas rather than create suburban sprawl. Gene Bell explained that the word transition implies that the area in question will ultimately be urban in nature. It will be annexed into the town to which it is adjacent. Trish Rafalow commented that she liked that comments about landowners responsibilities were included in the statement. Dan Teichman asked for clarification on the Flexibility of Development sections. He asked if it was a statement of fact or conjecture.