Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-20-1998 - 10c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1998
>
Agenda - 10-20-1998
>
Agenda - 10-20-1998 - 10c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2015 8:58:34 AM
Creation date
6/30/2010 11:18:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/20/1998
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
10c
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19981020
(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.
/
49
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
and frontages have enabled some designers to obtain more lots within the conservation option <br />than would have been achieved through a conventional subdivision. <br />Where public water and sewer services are unavailable, flexibility in subdivision design is <br />constrained by soil suitability for sewage disposal. Furthermore, the Cluster Option is not <br />practicable in areas of the County with 40,000 ft2 minimum lot sizes.. Environmental health <br />regulations stipulate that individual septic systems contain a minimum of 40,000 ft2 within <br />Protected Watersheds. Given Orange County's unique watershed geography, this effectively <br />prohibits the use of off -site septic easements to allow clustering of smaller lots. <br />Once lot yield is determined, then market forces and economic feasibility control the type of road <br />constructed and whether amenities can be afforded. Including amenities such as open space also <br />comes with the price of additional design, engineering, surveying, and legal fees. The local real <br />state market determines whether the cost of providing open space can be recovered in the selling <br />price of the lots. The Conservation Option resolves this issue because it allows developers to <br />provide open space (to comply with regulations and provide a marketable amenity) at no <br />additional costs above creating individual lots. <br />In June the Planning Staff distributed questionnaires to the 14 participants in the Flexible <br />Development process to solicit comments on the procedures and standards. Only one response <br />was received. It is provided in Appendix B. <br />CONCLUSION <br />Major subdivision activity during FY 97 -98 was not extensive enough to thoroughly analyze the <br />effectiveness of the Flexible Development regulations. The stated purpose of the program of <br />open space preservation was not achieved to an obvious level of success. On a positive note, six <br />of the eight (75 %) major subdivision proposals outside the Rural Buffer intend to utilize a <br />Flexible Development (5 conservation; 1 cluster). Of the two remaining subdivisions, Lawrence <br />Road Subdivision is awaiting a decision on rezoning, and the Wildwood West concept plan <br />(cluster option) was denied by the Planning Board. <br />The provision of the Neighborhood Information Meeting has significantly increased the <br />awareness of adjacent and neighboring property owners to the proceedings of the Planning <br />Board. However, subdivision design and open space preservation are rarely the major issues of <br />discussion. <br />Trends during this reporting period suggest that the Conservation Option has become the de facto <br />concept plan submittal. Because the conservation option enables subdividers to incorporate the <br />open space within individual lots, it eliminates the need to consider open space as a `critical <br />mass' or larger interconnected corridor to be set aside and preserved. This raises a concern about <br />the quality of the open space being protected by the Conservation Option. Furthermore, it brings <br />into question the ability of current Flexible Development standards to achieve the long -term goal <br />of a contiguous, countywide network of open space. <br />Flexible Development Annual Report #2 July 1998 Page 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.