Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
15 <br /> Vic Knight commended the staff people and volunteers who worked on the plan. He <br /> indicated that he supports 80% of the plan. He would like to see more clarification on the <br /> issues. He commented that much of what is currently required by the Subdivision Ordinance is <br /> static. He approves the flexible development concept but feels that there are still many <br /> unresolved issues. He mentioned that there are bonuses, other than density bonuses, that <br /> developers are willing to use, and for which the public is willing to pay. He felt that allowing a <br /> developer to present only a flexible development plan was discriminatory. He was disturbed by <br /> the statement that Flexible Development pertains everywhere in the County except the Rural <br /> Buffer Zoning District. <br /> Mary Willis mentioned that the Planning Board uses the Concept Plan to identify issues <br /> that are likely to come up in the Preliminary Plan. Approval with conditions would continue in a <br /> similar fashion. The Planning Board would look at both plans and would approve both plans. <br /> That approval could be "with conditions" for both Conventional and Flexible Development <br /> options. <br /> Lee Rafalow commented that good work has been done here. However, he felt that the <br /> proposal would create different and possibly better suburban sprawl. A 33% requirement of <br /> open space is inadequate. It will not achieve the objectives that he sees as necessary for <br /> promoting agricultural, wildlife habitats, and conservation. He mentioned a November 10 Wall <br /> Street Journal article which discussed conservation oriented development. The article <br /> discussed open space developments ranging from 68% to 98%. He asked that options <br /> continue to be explored and provided to encourage flexible development. However, he also <br /> requested that the importance of zoning regulations not be forgotten. <br /> Bob Hall, a member of the Economic Development Commission, spoke in support of the <br /> proposal to encourage open space. He spoke in support of requiring an open space concept <br /> plan, and limited density bonuses for affordable housing. He also supported the concept of <br /> higher design standards or disincentives for conventional subdivisions, including paved streets <br /> with bike lanes, sidewalks, construction setbacks, and tree lined buffers for major roads. He <br /> asked for caution regarding expanding the menu of land development options for building in <br /> rural Orange County. Too many options could create incentives and cause it to be more <br /> profitable to develop. He also questioned the bonus options which allows off-site land to be <br /> protected through conservation easements and used to increase the number of homes being <br /> built. He asked that the density bonus section be written so that it can be used only to create <br /> the kind of homes that the County wants and needs. Another issue he addressed was setting <br /> the minimum open space at 33% of all land. Carrboro's standard is 40% in their Urban <br /> Transition Area. For the County to accept 33% invites a developer to build deeper into the <br /> County. The standard is based on all land, not just buildable land. The 33% would allow for <br /> steep slopes, wet lands, and flood plains to be counted toward open space. He stated that <br /> Randall Arendt recommends 50% of buildable land. He asked that this percentage be reviewed <br /> and revised. He asked that the concept involving the "Village Option" be pulled from this plan <br /> and sent to public hearing separately for further discussion and input. <br /> Dan Bromal, an Eno Township resident, asked that the County consider the cost of <br />