Laserfiche WebLink
service area a little longer to allow for more infill. She felt that Alternative I was not <br />equitable. If there is a problem, then all those people who are in the same situation should <br />be helped; that would result in a much larger area to be developed and seriously impact the <br />amount of land able to be developed in the county. She apologized to staff, but could not <br />quite see a rural village yet. She recommended they choose Alternative 4. <br />Peter Robinson, 3I5 Greytwig, is with Laurel Builders and owns some property <br />� under discussion and some not under discussion. He can look at situations both as a <br />landowner and as a developer. He thought Mr. O'Haire has a very valid poitI on his <br />alternative which is wanted by his client. He thought the Board should allow it to go to <br />DCA. He opined that Alternative 2 was not a total solution because the only way a property <br />owner can receive value for their land is to find a developer who wants to develop St}0 acres. <br />One of the problems now with the urban service area is that there are a lot of area � that do <br />not have sewer, but do have water. The Board needs to look at how to start same real urban <br />development. A house on an acre and a half within the urban service area creates urban <br />sprawl. Because of the lengthy process in development, the development now under <br />consideration will not happen for 3 or 4 years into the future. This is an opportunity to figure <br />out a real plan for it. He used the map to argue against the 340' buffer. He suggested the <br />Board would have to specify under Alternative 2 that there be water and sewer service and <br />predicted there would not be many rural villages if that is required, because the economics <br />do not work. On top of that, a road is required. Those necessities will prohibit a proli Feration <br />of spot development outside the urban service area. He saw this as a ten-year process. <br />People must be given the opportunity to plan for the future use of their property. He <br />suggested they approve Alternative I, direct staff to have new workshops with landowners <br />who will be affected and try to figure out what needs to be done. One meeting will not salve <br />the long-term view. He recalled when the land use map was originally sent up tD DCA <br />December 12, 2QOQ <br />121 <br />8K I ! F PG 4 51 <br />