Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-23-1998 - C3 (a)
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1998
>
Agenda - 11-23-1998
>
Agenda - 11-23-1998 - C3 (a)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2010 10:20:59 AM
Creation date
6/25/2010 10:20:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/23/1998
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
C 3 (a)
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19981123
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~~~ <br />Anne Creek L~'aterclied `tn(f Report <br />Orange Count~~ Planning and Inspections Department <br />Watery Fork would be needed. OWASA would acquire 1377 acres of land (413 through <br />fee-simple and 964 through conservation easements). <br />Option 3: Large Lot /Creative Open Space Design (OWASA Recommended) <br />Rezone watershed to 5-acre lot zoning (with up to five two-acre lots for lots of record), or <br />"Creative Open Space Design" with 50% open-space and current two-acre zoning (1-acre <br />minimum lot size). Possible construction of tributary detention on Caterpillar or Tom's <br />Creek, depending on participation rate in cluster development and effective lot size of <br />developed lots. OWASA acquisition of 1266 acres of land. <br />All of the options are capable of protecting water quality to the same general level. Differences <br />lie in the certainty of water quality protection, the substantive variation in the ability of the <br />options to meet other non-water quality considerations, and perhaps in the economic feasibility <br />of each option. The benefits offered under each options are as varied as the differences. <br />Mandatory Flexible Development /Large Lot uses an existing, known program and may <br />provide greater developer flexibility in site design, since only 33% of the tract would be required <br />to remain in open space. Additionally, land acquisition by OWASA and the focus on non- <br />structural controls in the critical area adds to the certainty of protecting water quality -although <br />regional-scale structural controls in the rest of the watershed may offset any gain in certainty and <br />the downzoning in the critical azea would affect property owners. <br />Creative Open Space Design guarantees that 50% of all new major subdivisions will be open <br />space and may minimize land owner costs, since there would be no change in zoning. As a result <br />it offers significant resource protection benefits that transcend water quality and could also <br />preserve natural azeas and wildlife habitats, flora and fauna and cultural or archaeological <br />resources. It would, however, result in higher costs to OWASA customers due to needed <br />structural controls. <br />The Large Lot /Creative Open Space Design ("OWASA-Recommended") is a hybrid of two <br />options recommended by OWASA. It offers the most developer familiarity -using conventional <br />single-family lots without open space set-asides. The lower residential yield and density should <br />reduce the level of public services provided by the County to serve development, but also affects <br />landowner impacts. This option offers the highest certainty of protecting water quality, but the <br />exact level of certainty may depend on the level of participation in the "clustering" option. <br />Preliminary Staff Recommendation. <br />Having identified three alternatives for consideration, staff plans to use further research and <br />feedback from the Board and stakeholders to make a final recommendation for the November 23, <br />1998 public hearing. Regardless of the management options ultimately selected, staff feels that <br />implementation through amending existing Cane Creek watershed zoning districts and/or a <br />special section in the Flexible Development provisions for Cane Creek (please see page 31 of <br />staff report) would be the best approach. Finally, the OWASA recommendations on potential <br />"tradeoffs" to the watershed community were not evaluated herein, since they do not relate to <br />water quality. <br />Executive Summary 2 <br />October 30, 1998 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.