Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
13 <br /> Jay Zaragoza spoke against this proposal. He commented that private paved roads <br /> create problems because no one wants to pay for the maintenance. These problems are <br /> avoided by building to state standards. <br /> Vic Knight spoke in support of this proposed amendment change. The Private Road <br /> Maintenance Agreements are reviewed by the County Attorney. They are also carefully <br /> explained to new homeowners at the time of Closing. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to <br /> refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than <br /> January 16, 1996. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> III. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT/OPEN SPACE PROPOSALS <br /> This item was presented by David Stancil to receive citizen comment on open <br /> space development strategies, including a staff generated Flexible Development Proposal. He <br /> reviewed the timeline for this project which began in December of 1993 with a work session <br /> between the governing boards of Orange County and Hillsborough. At that meeting it was <br /> agreed to establish the University Station Planning Group. As a result of the work by citizens <br /> and staff , three basic approaches have been recommended. They are: <br /> The Rural Character Study Committee recommendations; <br /> The "Status Quo"; and <br /> A"Cluster Option" incorporating a mandatory 50% open space requirement and density limits <br /> based on the carrying capacity of the soils. <br /> The Planning Staff has prepared a proposal which consists of three parts. The first section <br /> contains "Goals and Action Strategies" (as recommended by the Rural Character Study <br /> Committee). The second section contains a "Flexible Development" option. The "Flexible <br /> Development" option has been prepared in the format of an amendment to the Subdivision <br /> Regulations. This entire report is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office. <br /> QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br /> David Stancil replied to a question from Commissioner Gordon. He stated that the <br /> conventional and flexible development proposals would be considered together and either both <br /> of them would be approved or both of them would be denied. This will assure that the process <br /> is not used to mandate flexible development. <br /> Mary Willis noted that Concept Plan approval is the Planning Board's commitment that, if <br /> the Preliminary Plan comes in essentially the same as the Concept Plan, then the Planning <br /> Board will recommend approval. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked if it would be necessary for developers to submit two plans, <br /> or could they submit only a flexible development proposal. If that happens, how would staff <br /> know how many lots to approve. <br /> David Stancil replied that if the developer intends to submit only a flexible development <br />