Agenda - 10-01-2003-9b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Planning Board recommendation into consideration. 2. An additional open space goal, `The Maintenance of Wildlife Corridors and Habitat', has been added in Section C.2 `Planning for Open Space'. 3. The ordinance language has been edited throughout the amendment for improved readability and brevity. 4. The language was changed in Section C.4 `Access to Open Space' to more clearly allow the ability to limit general public encroachment into Flexible Subdivision open space. The amendment still suggests that open space will `ideally' be available for the use of subdivision residents and/or the general public. It is now stated that this access may not be reasonable in all cases. As with the more flexible determination of access way improvements, public access into open space is now considered acase-by-case decision based on the overall goals of the subdivision's open space plan. 5. The required distances to open space put forth in Section C.4 `Access to Open Space' have been made more flexible. The previous language required that a certain number of lots would have to be 300 feet or 600 feet from an accessible point of open space. The new language requires those lots to be `approximately' those distances from open space, reflecting that the basis of those distances would be according to the overall merit of the open space proposal. 6. Anew paragraph was added at the beginning of Section C.2, `Planning for Open Space' stressing the need for open space to be planned and to become a comprehensive inclusion into the subdivision design. The language is designed to allow a stronger basis for the case- by-case analysis of open space arrangement in Flexible Subdivision plans by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners. Planning Board On August 6, 2003, the Planning Board recommended approval of the language changes. These changes have been incorporated into the text of the proposed ordinance. 1. The language setting out the Functional Open Space Goals in the second paragraph of Section C.2 "Planning For Open Space" has been changed to make its purpose more clearly delineated. Previously, the language stated that "[o]pen space...is functional when it positively furthers as many of the following goals as possible", and was followed by a list of eight open space goals. It now reads that open space is functional if it "prominently provides at least one of the following uses", followed by a list of three open space goals. The remaining five goals, which are essentially sub-goals contained within one of the main three goals, are listed separately, and are required to be "addressed...when relevant". 2. In Section C.5 "Ownership of Open Space", a previously unchanged section, the language was added in paragraphs regarding both fee simple and conservation easement dedications that "the County may reject any proposed dedication at its discretion prior to or during the application". 3. The term `man-made features' in Section C.2 "Planning for Open Space -Composition" was changed to `constructed features' in respect to the County's policy on gender-neutral language. 4. Section F.1 "General Criteria" previously read that open space should be "beneficial to stated open-space goals". It now reads "supportive of stated open-space goals". 5. An additional category - "View Preservation Areas" -was added to the Section F.1 "General Criteria" list of uses that would be suitable exceptions to the preference against fragmented or long, narrow open space shapes. "View Preservation Areas" is given a brief parenthetical definition in the text - "also vistas or visual amenity preservation areas -areas left open to allow public views to one or more natural or constructed features of high visual quality". 2