Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Moratorium Solution?? - Option 3 modified, passed

Amid a flurry of last minute changes by the Planning Department, in apparent response to my message detailing its unworkablility, the modified Option 3 was voted on by the County Council, and passed by a 6 to 1 vote. (Councilman Neil Anderton, the sole supporter of sanity)

While some things may have changed (very) slightly for the better with the last minute changes, the end result will still be - more developments, more houses, and some open space generally placed in the back of the lots, unseen by the public eye, or filled with buildings (see The Crossings or Cobblestone) and lots of 14,250 sq. ft.

With 335 lots in the 5 to 10 acre size alone (as reported by the Planning Department), at an average size of 7 acres, that would be potentially 2000 acres of building or 2,000 houses, in that group of land parcels alone. There may have been a modification to the smaller parcels which would reduce this somewhat.

In actuality, though I have not seen the complete proposal, it appears that this amendment also is nearly unworkable. The change involved deleting the "2/3 acre" lot and limiting other lots to a maximum of 35%. Net result, for example, a 60 acre parcel, under the new law, would be allowed

18 @ 1/3 acre lots
18 @ 1/2 acre
0 @ 2/3 acre
18 @ 3/4 acre
and 2 @ 1 acre for a total of 56 houses

That would be as large as the lots could get. The total acreage used by building lots would be 30.44 acres, with 29.56 acres of "open space;" which, of course, would:

  1. not comply with the 50% open space,
  2. not allow "clustering",
  3. and would have no space available for "buffer strips" between the clusters, even if they could be accommodated.

But, never fear, a few words were added - "or as determined by the Land Use Authority" which will allow the Planning Commission to approve whatever they desire.

No comments: