Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board recommends forwarding 71.8‑acre Salem Street subdivision to council with caveat on 0.9-acre open-space discrepancy
Summary
The Planning Board recommended the preliminary plat for a 71.8-acre, 56‑lot residential subdivision in Selma’s ETJ be forwarded to Town Council but asked staff and the developer to resolve or update the board on about 0.9 acres of required open space that remain unaccounted.
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning Board voted Oct. 27 to recommend that Town Council consider the preliminary plat and special-use permit for a major subdivision proposed by Salem Street Developers in Selma’s extraterritorial jurisdiction off Buffalo Road.
Applicant representatives said the project covers 71.8 acres and shows 56 single‑family lots; staff reported 14.4 acres of open space on the plans but noted roughly 0.9 acres of required open space are not accounted for under the UDO because wetlands within the site cannot be counted as open space in the same way as town-owned parkland. “It does not meet our UDO requirement for open space, but that does not mean that we’re not recommending the project,” a planning staff member said, explaining staff were still researching the anomaly and working with the applicant.
Scott Brown, the project engineer, told the board that lots were sited outside the 100‑year floodway and that a licensed soil scientist had evaluated soils to support septic or conventional systems as indicated in the plans. Braxton, a representative of Salem Street Developers, said the builder contract covers at least 75% of lots and that the product will be single‑family homes with mostly four bedrooms.
Board members discussed whether to delay a recommendation pending final resolution of the 0.9‑acre discrepancy. The board ultimately voted to forward the application to Town Council as presented with a request that staff provide an update on how the open‑space issue will be resolved; the roll call included at least one abstention during the vote.
The Planning Board’s recommendation is advisory; final approvals (including any conditions the council imposes) must come from the Town Council.
