Laserfiche WebLink
r 1 <br />BOOK .tLdtr frltUt <br />maximum, (3) limit one acre of each lot to a buildable area, and (4) have no clustering <br />requirement. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended the amendment by a 5-2 <br />vote to remove the clustering requirement and allow 5 acre lots with 1 -acre homesites. The <br />Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 6-1 to delete Policy 5.8. Staffbelieves that <br />Policy 5.8 tries to limit development to a low density/low rise community. 5 acres is too <br />small to farm and the Policy allows for conversion of agricultural lands to residential lands <br />as conditions change. Removing the clustering requirement would have a large impact on <br />public services and would increase the per-unit cost of providing roads, police and fire <br />protection, emergency services, and schools. Large lots will not integrate into the Urban <br />Service Area (USA) and will blur the urban/rural boundary. Staff does not believe the <br />requested amendment is consistent with the goal of the County's Future Land Use Plan and <br />does not support the request. <br />Commissioner Adams felt the request would not change the density or compatibility <br />of the project and would affect the tax base favorably with an increase in the value of the <br />land. <br />Director Keating conceded that the clustering requirement on a 20 or 40 -acre project <br />would be quite different from a 1200 -acre parcel and agreed that this amendment would only <br />relate to these much larger projects. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge questionedwhethertherequestwere site specific or county- <br />wide, and Director Keating responded that the change would be county -wide. <br />Chairman Macht questioned the definition of"equestrian" and wondered if potbellied <br />pigs would be entitled to the same amendment. <br />Director Keating agreed that the criteria are not well-defined and should be amended. <br />Commissioner Adams felt that the "equestrian" requirement should be stated in a deed <br />restriction, and not by County regulation. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in <br />this matter. <br />Attorney Mchael O'Haire, representing the applicant, stated that he and the <br />applicant were both shocked when they were informed that a Comp Plan amendment would <br />be required for this project. He distributed a hand-out containing proposed language for the <br />amendment as follows: <br />MAY 189 1999 <br />40 -46- <br />1 <br />