Laserfiche WebLink
to protect the value of that land to function as an environmental <br />ecosystem. The point he is making is that our staff has said if <br />you allow less density, you afford more protection because there <br />is less development going in there, and they have recommended no <br />lots larger than 1 upa. What Attorney Watts has said is we <br />agree, but we can protect the functional values of this land by <br />leaving just as much land intact with 1/2 acre lots or less on <br />the same amount of disturbed land. He is saying that he can <br />afford that same ecological protection with lots half the size <br />but twice the density. <br />Director Keating wished to make a couple of points. When <br />Mr. Watts brings out that we allow 120 acres to be cleared, we <br />have a requirement in there that lots can't be any larger than 1 <br />acre. In his proposed C-3 District there are just "weasel" <br />words. There is no requirement; it is "preferably cluster" and <br />"encourage cluster." What we have done is set a standard and <br />some criteria - with the 1/5, limiting lot size to 1 upa, lessing <br />out utilities, you will have at least 80% preservation. If he <br />sells his property tomorrow, you have got nothing except some <br />encouragement in the C-3 as he is proposing it. Director Keating <br />further pointed out that according to our proposal there is no <br />prohibition for having 1/2 acre lots or even less. We have a <br />maximum lot size. <br />Attorney Watts agreed that Director Keating makes a good <br />point, and he believed his clients will agree that clustering <br />will be required, not simply encouraged. If that will give him <br />some comfort, they do not have any quarrel with that. <br />Commissioner Bird noted that they then could accept <br />mandatory clustering at 1/21, and Planner DeBlois brought up also <br />the mandatory cap of a 1/2 acre which is not specific currently. <br />Attorney Watts felt they could change the language in their <br />proposal and instead of saying that lots created through the PD <br />process shall not <br />exceed 1 acre in <br />size, they could <br />just <br />put a <br />flat cap in there <br />that development <br />approved through <br />the <br />PD <br />DEC 11 I U9® <br />89 <br />BOOK <br />8 <br />Cid <br />F'1uto.`���J <br />