I have a zoning ordinance up for first reading this month that would drastically change how the county calculates Clustering Densities. In my opinion and the opinion of the Planning Commission going off of gross density down to a 6,000 sf lot is not the answer and we have way too many 6, 000 sf lots in the county already. So the answer currently was to change it to Net Acreage instead of Gross.
Well, obviously the home builders assoc. is all over my case saying this will increase sprawl, increase price, and make life worse and taxes more etc. etc. I agree density is a good thing, for the most part, but as you get away from the urban suburban to the fringe areas of the county I believe the density should get less and the lots bigger as you get into the "country side".
My ordinance lacks in many places (I've been on the job 5 months and this is change #3) but I have a 3 step process I believe will work starting with the net acreage then working on our less than accessible bonus density, and then moving on to required open space via the sub regs.
Here's the $64,000 question...
I feel, as we move from urban to ultra rural the densities should fall off upwards of acre lots and more. Who here has a similar situation in their township or county and how have you addressed the sprawl / affordability questions? Also, am I out of line changing this part of the ordinance and in this case, what is being called sprawl is only thinning out as you reach the outermost spaces of the region.