Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Cluster Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners ask staff to revisit cluster zoning rules, question counting retention ponds as open space
Summary
At an Aug. meeting, commissioners asked planning staff to draft options clarifying whether stormwater retention ponds and other infrastructure may count toward the 25% open-space requirement in cluster/option zoning and to return with proposals for the August planning review.
Commissioner Shaver pressed planning staff on Aug. 4 to clarify how the county’s cluster (option) zoning counts required open space, asking whether retention ponds and other infrastructure should be included in the 25% land set-aside. The commission directed staff to draft options for review at the next meeting and to forward the matter to the planning department.
The exchange focused on how cluster developments — which allow smaller lots in exchange for preserved open space — are implemented. “The purpose of the cluster is to develop an option to establish to encourage clustering of residential development, promoting more creative design options based on the size, shape, natural resources of the site,” Commissioner Shaver read from the code during the discussion. He said developers often treat retention ponds as the required open space, but that, in his view, retention ponds are not “natural open space” residents can use.
Another commissioner raised the same concern and framed it as a matter of intent: the land set aside for open space should be usable for residents for walking, biking or recreation and not simply infrastructure. That commissioner asked staff whether the code could be clarified to exclude “non-usable” infrastructure from the 25% calculation.
Commissioners also discussed how cluster overlays affect lot yield. Shaver described a worked example: on a hypothetical 50-acre parcel, using cluster rules that allow lots as small as 15,000 square feet could yield roughly three to four more lots than standard R-1 zoning (which requires half-acre lots). He emphasized the cluster overlay preserves density but concentrates lots, noting minimum side-yard setbacks remain the same, so houses remain a minimum distance apart.
There was no formal vote to change the ordinance. The commission asked Jim (planning staff) to return to the August meeting with several draft options, and then to send the selected approach to planning for formal review.
Why it matters: commissioners said the clarification would affect how developers meet the county’s open-space goals and how much usable recreational land is actually provided in new subdivisions. Some members framed the change as one way to preserve the county’s rural character while preserving options for smaller lots.
What happens next: staff will prepare options for the commission’s August meeting and, if directed, send revisions to the planning department for formal consideration.
