Commissioners weigh conservation subdivisions against residents’ preference for 5–10‑acre lots

Ben Tarbutton, the county’s planning manager, told the commission that the county code includes a conservation‑design (cluster) subdivision provision but that existing incentives were removed about 10–15 years ago, which has limited take‑up. "We do have a conservation design subdivision provision in our code, but the incentives are not there," he said, noting the county used to offer a density bonus to make such designs economically attractive to developers.

Staff and commissioners discussed tradeoffs. Staff explained a cluster conservation subdivision concentrates density on smaller lots while preserving the remainder as open space and described ownership options (homeowner association, community land trust or public ownership) and maintenance questions. A planner noted that clustered development typically requires community water or sewer systems, which are expensive and take time to approve; a commissioner observed that developers often prefer simple large‑lot subdivision patterns because federal and state approvals for public water systems add years and cost.

Survey responses presented by staff showed strong local preference for larger lots: "almost 60% said they wanna see large lots 5 to 10... and then the other 55% wanted 10 acres or greater," a staff presenter said, reflecting a cultural and market preference that the commission said will complicate efforts to preserve contiguous working lands without incentives or regulatory changes.