8/23/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AUG 2 0 BOOP( 17 FAGS. 741 Mrs. Offutt argued that by coming up with a new designation of sensitive/important, you are overlaying more restrictive development criteria on top of something that did not have it in the past. She asked if that Is correct. Planner DeBlois stated that actually the intent was not more restrictive but to allow more flexibility and incentives for protection, such as cluster development and density transfer, which now for the most part only applies to wetlands. This would allow for density transfers on upland areas deemed environmentally important/sensitive. Mrs. Offutt continued to argue that you are adding another new designation of important above sensitive. Planner DeBlois noted there is a section in the Conservation Element that does call for a percentage of protection of significant upland communities on the larger tracts, but it states that this would only apply provided it would not render a site unbuildable or overly restricted.. Director Keating emphasized that the Board today has to decide what their objective is, and is it to save some of the scrub area without precluding all development rights on it and is it to save wetlands area. The big change between sensitive and important is that environmentally sensitive sets strict density limits of 1 unit for 5 acres and staff does not feel that is needed on environmentally important areas, but that a survey does need to be done. Mrs. Lier wished to know if that 5 acre figure applies to agricultural and citrus. She noted that you can't have cluster development and transfer of density when you are planting a citrus grove. Planner DeBlois believed it is more directed at scrub communities and coastal tropical hammocks, but it does not distinguish from agricultural. Director Keating confirmed that it does apply to agricul- tural lands, and he believed Mrs. Lier is saying she may have 16