At the Aug. 14 zoning workshop staff presented a draft open‑space ordinance intended to work with the proposed residential zoning changes. The draft defines how to compute required usable open space, what counts toward that total, and how built amenities and trails receive extra credit.

Key points
- Measurement method: wetlands, buffers and inaccessible uplands are subtracted from gross acreage to produce net developable acreage; the open‑space percentage (for example 25% in R‑5) is then applied to that net figure.
- Minimum parcel size: single open‑space parcels must be at least 2,500 square feet and at least 30 feet wide (exceptions for trails are allowed where trail corridor geometry differs from a typical parcel).
- Amenity credits: built amenities that require maintenance (pools, clubhouses, improved playgrounds, sport courts) earn higher open‑space credits than unimproved fields; staff proposed larger credits for paved trails than for unpaved ones.
- Pond/detention credits and limits: detention ponds and lakes that are publicly accessible can count toward open space, but staff proposed a cap so ponds alone cannot satisfy the majority of open‑space requirements. As drafted, only a portion of a water body’s surface counts if only part is accessible; staff recommended limiting pond acreage credit (e.g., no more than 25% of the required open space coming from ponds) to avoid over‑crediting stormwater features.
- Public dedication: land or an improved recreational facility dedicated to the county could be eligible for credit toward required open space; staff indicated the county would review such offers before accepting maintenance responsibility.

Why this matters
Staff and developers discussed tradeoffs: a higher open‑space requirement can preserve larger contiguous natural areas and create visible buffers, but developers warned that wetlands and buffers significantly reduce net developable acreage and that overly strict metrics could make projects infeasible without further incentive for paved trails or improved amenities.

Questions and next steps
Developers asked whether a community playground or an enhanced multi‑use trail should count more than multiple small unimproved green strips; staff signaled they may increase credits for robust trails and improved amenities and explore larger credit multipliers where the county agrees to accept a facility for public maintenance. The draft will be refined to add explicit formulas and examples for crediting.

Ending
Staff asked for additional review time to produce clearer examples of credit calculations and to coordinate the open‑space rules with the R‑district and subdivision changes before returning to the Board of Commissioners.