ordinance’s intent. This principle of flexibility directly conflicts with §190-17 (B) that states “Only
one principal structure shall be permitted on a lot, except where otherwise provided by this
chapter.” With this requirement, two identical applications for development under the Conservation
Subdivision, with one creating separate lots and one proposed asa condominium would not be
treated equally. The condominium development would not be allowed or would need to go to the
Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance, and if granted, then to the Planning Board for
subdivision approval. In contrast, the same development with individual lots could proceed directly
to Planning Board for approval.
The proposed clarification to this section of the land use code is therefore to explictly allow for the
design and fundamental principles of a conservation subdivision to be applied equally if the
proposed development will produce individual lots for each housing unit OR if the project will be
developed as acondominium form of ownership with units being owned individually upon
commonly owned land, as we believe it was intended.
The proposed change will create equal processes while still appropriately protecting the intent of the
Conservation Subdivision ordinance to regulate the design of a development in order to preserve
open space and minimize infrastructure.
2|
