|
DRAFT
<br /> 800 Cy Stober: As an action item. That would need to be a formal vote.
<br /> 801
<br /> 802 Lamar Proctor: By the planning board to submit to the board of county commissioners for their
<br /> 803 consideration?
<br /> 804
<br /> 805 Cy Stober: As their advisory body. Yeah.
<br /> 806
<br /> 807 Lamar Proctor: For a text change to the UDO to make that change?
<br /> 808
<br /> 809 Cy Stober: Yeah, I think that what we need is we need clarity. I think you've laid it out pretty clearly,
<br /> 810 and certainly the discussions before have laid it out pretty clearly. We'd probably need to
<br /> 811 have at least one type of workshop meeting where we make sure that we're fulfilling that
<br /> 812 vision. But, yeah, that could be done. What we don't want to do is do a whole lot of work
<br /> 813 and get it before legal, and then come to you and go, "That's not what we meant, we
<br /> 814 meant this."
<br /> 815
<br /> 816 Lamar Proctor: Right.
<br /> 817
<br /> 818 Cy Stober: Yeah, sure, you included the floodplains and the stream buffers, but what about the
<br /> 819 wildlife corridors or something like that? Or contiguous tree stands more than 50 acres. 1
<br /> 820 don't know, I'm making stuff up, but you know. What needs to be in that umbrella and
<br /> 821 what needs to be creditable as dedicated areas, and what I've generally heard is
<br /> 822 potentially buildable areas should be credited; potentially not buildable area in Orange
<br /> 823 County, which would include the floodplains because we don't allow residential
<br /> 824 construction in floodplains in Orange County, should not be creditable. But should still be
<br /> 825 required of any new applications. But I also want to offer, from the land-use perspective,
<br /> 826 that the more concessions you demand for development, the more expensive you're
<br /> 827 going to make a development. So, that's the balance. That's tough. And I'm not saying
<br /> 828 that to be discouraging, but that's the balance that we're trying to strike with the land-use
<br /> 829 plan; is how do you achieve housing attainability, and environmental protection, and tax-
<br /> 830 based balance all at the same time? Those are the three goals that are laid out right now
<br /> 831 for the land-use plan. I think all the critiques of how we do flexible development are
<br /> 832 completely rational and make so much sense, and we're giving credit to people for land
<br /> 833 they can't build on anyway. All that's agreed. And if you still say, "Well, we're not giving
<br /> 834 you a density bonus until you get to 44 percent." You've now made that bonus unit, you
<br /> 835 know, probably$100,000.00 more expensive to build. So,just bear that in mind. It's a
<br /> 836 balance. It's not easy.
<br /> 837
<br /> 838 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you. That was my question.
<br /> 839
<br /> 840 Chris Johnston: So, I just wanted to say how much I appreciated the notes in regard to having the
<br /> 841 questions from the commissioners. So, I was looking at Page 37, which shows the
<br /> 842 community septic lots being off-site, essentially, where it goes and shows the diagram of
<br /> 843 the nice little homes in the forest, and then their community septic, or their individual
<br /> 844 septic lots then go off into the—and for some reason, I just had such a hangup about, you
<br /> 845 know, this is open space that we're preserving. In my mind, I had it where the CSDs were
<br /> 846 preserving natural space, and then to have a septic field in them just felt counter intuitive,
<br /> 847 right? You're going in, you're building out. But the reason I bring this up is because the
<br /> 848 journey that I had with—you know, then they talked about this as the commissioners,
<br /> 849 where they talked about, "Okay, what can we actually do with this? Is it, could it be land
<br />
|