8-6-25 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9.3.25 1756 1757 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. So, any discussion amongst the Board? I'll just say this is the direction that I think the 1758 Board of County Commissioners wanted to move in terms of residential development in terms of 1759 concentrating homes and leaving more open space, but I also recognize that you are, as the 1760 applicant pointed out,you're providing homes, but you're losing that space, that natural space 1761 where the homes are going to be, so it's a constant tradeoff. I just say that for what it's worth, and 1762 the recognition that development comes at some price, but it also provides some benefit. I do 1763 think that in terms of conditional districts and what we see in subdivisions, there was thought put 1764 into this in terms of trying to concentrate the housing and leave more open space,which I think is 1765 a benefit. I just say it for what it's worth. I welcome any comments or discussion, or any motions 1766 as to the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 6, or the Statement of Inconsistency in 1767 Attachment 7. 1768 1769 Charity Kirk: I would agree with you in that I think this is probably preferable over the status quo of spreading 1770 things out. There is an area for wildlife. I would prefer,just personally, I would prefer the lot sizes 1771 to be bigger and the number of houses to be smaller, but I understand where it's coming from and 1772 the alternative, and I think this is preferable to the alternative potential. 1773 1774 Meg Millard: Clustering is a nice idea, and having some open space is a nice idea, but I don't know why you 1775 have to pack as many houses as 43 in the buildable area, and that it could be less if you were 1776 really considering the rural character. I mean, if we're really trying to preserve things in the rural 1777 areas of Orange County. 1778 1779 Charity Kirk: What would you think would be a better number? 1780 1781 Meg Millard: Well, if the buildable land that they're proposing to build on is 35 acres, if you did 35 homes 1782 instead of 43. Just drop it down some. 1783 1784 Chris Johnston: Just to confirm, Cy, given the R1 designation, how many homes would you fit in at the current rate 1785 by right?Sorry to put you on the spot there. 1786 1787 Taylor Perschau: If the subject parcel is 63 acres,the current zoning is Rural Residential, minimum lot size is 1788 40,000 square feet,which is .92 acres. 1789 1790 Lamar Proctor: Okay. 1791 1792 Charity Kirk: So,you could fit about 60 homes potentially, but there's the stream. 1793 1794 Beth Bronson: I you consider what they were developing, the 35 acres, it would be 35 homes. 1795 1796 Delores Bailey: Changing the zoning would change this how? 1797 1798 Taylor Perschau: Proposing greater than 20 lots requires this rezoning request. 1799 1800 Lamar Proctor: I mean,they could subdivide the parcel and do the one house per acre within R1 as of right. 1801 1802 Chris Johnston: Sure. But the conservation district, the benefit is you have the entire chunk that is being left alone, 1803 more or less, right, so you're smushing it, yes, but arguably, a person who is purchasing this lot 1804 understands what they're purchasing when they go into something like this, and if no one 1805 purchases it, I keep coming back to the developer is developing, they have presented a plan, does 1806 it fit with what we're looking for. We're not developers. I'm not a developer at least. 1807 1808 Delores Bailey: I am. 1809