The Superior Board of Trustees will consider a new "Open Space and Natural Spaces District" on Monday, with the draft to the Board including the point that no public input has been received. (starts on page 16 of the PDF document).
The proposed revised ordinance language says the new zoning definition will be used to "preserve the open space and undeveloped character of those properties within the district. Land within the district is protected from development but low-impact improvements to the land such as trails, trailheads, flood control facilities, and reclamation may be allowed pursuant to a Special Use or Conditional Use permit as set forth in the Schedule of Uses in Section 16-189. The Open Space and Natural Uses District may be comprised of both public and private lands."
Apparently there are no private properties proposed for inclusion at this point, but the zoning definition would still allow this in the future. It appears to be a way to pre-empt any demand for significant access or recreational use on Town- and Jointly-owned properties by describing them as being in this more restricted-use zoning. (No basketball courts or dog parks, etc. is how I read it.)
My understanding was that the government had to purchase land for open space if they want to so severely limit development. I'm a big supporter of open space taxes for just such purposes. But his ordinance creates defacto open space to any property it is applied to. The Lastoka and Verhey properties are the only ones listed for inclusion now, they're owned open space. Perhaps this won't ever be an issue because it won't be applied to private property. But their request to approve such language makes me wonder why they need this authority....
A public hearing will be held Aug 27 anyway, so we'll see if this causes any concern.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It's probably not so much a matter of "needing" the open space district, but having that district available to secure the expectations of Superior on its side of open space deals.
The notion of using open space as a reserve for affordable housing, revenue-sharing commercial, and other land uses has been brought up on these virtual pages in the past. That's what this would address. Typically, reciprocal conservation easements amongst joint purchasers greatly diminish the possibility that any such deviation from our current expectations would occur, but it's not unreasonable to look for zoning that would also reflect those understandings.
As to the potential for the OS zone to be used to downzone developable private property into open space, does Superior have any annexed land that this could happen to? It seems unlikely to me. And anyone coming into the Town with new land and competent representation would take care of this in the annexation agreement.
Even if there were such undeveloped private land currently in the Town, what does the Superior comp plan say? If the comp plan started changing, then you'd get worried.
As a note of general interest on this topic, Loudon County, Virginia, has been watched nationally as the test-case for this type of use of open space zoning on private property. (The regulations were struck down in court on procedural grounds - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5480-2005Mar3.html.)
It has always been curious to me that the situation in Boulder County is perceived as being so unique or extreme, when the same forces are at work throughout the country. In Loudon County, there was no doubt that the regulations were intended to freeze private property in a rural condition. I don't see that on the marquee in Superior.
Post a Comment