|
30
<br /> DRAFT
<br /> 1318 the land use plan. I think there's a worthwhile conversation to have with the commissioners about
<br /> 1319 what is the development pattern, and we're having this as part of the conservation neighborhood
<br /> 1320 discussions of, like,what development patterns are reflective of the community character of
<br /> 1321 Orange County? Do we want to have smaller lots that are preserving twice as much open space,
<br /> 1322 and are well buffered from the area. Is that retaining that community character? Is that
<br /> 1323 compromising it because we're allowing for those smaller lots? It's not an easy answer. It's an
<br /> 1324 answer about trade offs, but, and so I just, my concern is that if we say that we can,we're going to
<br /> 1325 work on that. I need an output that makes sense, so we can check a box, and say yes,they
<br /> 1326 clearly have demonstrated that they are meeting principle three,which I think is sustainability,
<br /> 1327 energy, something like that. How do we do that? Is that one we want to include. The community
<br /> 1328 character one, I mean,we would have to have an objective principle about general lot size in this
<br /> 1329 area is 1.5 acres. What they're proposing is generally a .9-acre development. At what point is .9
<br /> 1330 acres not in character with 1.5 acres,for example. It's not a simple answer. It deserves some
<br /> 1331 research and it would take time, but I'm not saying no, but I'd need more guidance, and we'd also
<br /> 1332 need the board to petition the commissioners that the planning staff should be looking into this.
<br /> 1333
<br /> 1334 Whitney Watson: Okay, so you referenced farmland loss early on in your presentation. So, if there's a farmer who's
<br /> 1335 got a hundred acres or so,and adjacent to him is 50 acres,the owner of that 50 acres decides to
<br /> 1336 sell and see it subdivided into a subdivision. It may not change the zoning, but for the farmer, it
<br /> 1337 completely changes the character around him, around them. Even for the owners and developers
<br /> 1338 of the new properties being adjacent to a farm, changes that character. So, I guess what I'm
<br /> 1339 hearing is that as long as the applicant checked all the boxes, there's no way to say, sorry, it
<br /> 1340 doesn't work.
<br /> 1341
<br /> 1342 Charity Kirk: I think the key there is zoning. Zone it so you don't allow houses. You don't allow it to be split up.
<br /> 1343
<br /> 1344 Whitney Watson: That's hard to do because agricultural, residential, allows a great deal of flexibility.
<br /> 1345
<br /> 1346 Charity Kirk: But I think that's the point, that is the area to tweak, is actually what does the zoning mean, but
<br /> 1347 then we have to deal with the state, too.
<br /> 1348
<br /> 1349 Cy Stober: So,yes,every private property owner has the right to subdivide their land,and the county has to
<br /> 1350 provide for that right, but it also is allowed to have discussion on, like a discretionary of when does
<br /> 1351 that higher burden of proof, and higher burden of kind of public engagement kick in? When do
<br /> 1352 you have rezoning rather than by-rights subdivision? We have to provide for the by-rights
<br /> 1353 subdivision. We have to provide for by rights subdivision of land, but only up to a point, and
<br /> 1354 there's a lot of leeway there about what Orange County thinks,what thresholds Orange County
<br /> 1355 thinks should go to rezoning. How many lots should be created and is it a different answer for
<br /> 1356 doing conventional lots versus flexible development lots. Should we, and I think to the
<br /> 1357 commissioner's point in kicking off this process, is they want to encourage more flexible
<br /> 1358 developments throughout the county. They want to be encouraging of that conservation and
<br /> 1359 protection of open space. So, anything that can incentivize that further, is welcome to a point, and
<br /> 1360 1 think that there is, because there does seem to be an opinion that more than 20 lots on a parcel
<br /> 1361 of land needs to meet that higher burden of proof. Or, it is not proof,that would be quasi-judicial,
<br /> 1362 but it needs to meet that higher burden of argument, I guess. Advocacy. So, I think that that's
<br /> 1363 really the question. If you want to have that discretionary role, and that is the planning board's
<br /> 1364 role, is to say when something is and is out of character,that is the question about when should
<br /> 1365 subdivisions be required to go through rezoning, and to be clear,that's also saying that you're
<br /> 1366 saying it is going to be more difficult to create more housing in the county,and that's not a bad
<br /> 1367 thing, necessarily, but in terms of our land use plan, because you're creating a higher cost to get
<br /> 1368 across the finish line. So part of the response that we've been needing is the commissioners
<br /> 1369 having a priority of trying to provide more varieties of housing and a bit more housing stock in the
<br /> 1370 county to meet the demand for housing for middle-income and lower-income households, and we
<br /> 1371 do not have good many good options right now. I do not think subdivisions are the only way to do
<br /> 1372 it. I do not think it is going to solve that problem, but it can assist it. And if you require things to go
<br />
|