Minutes - 19860527 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~~~ been made from the first proposal. He pointed out that the proposed Ordinance amendment would only apply to major subdivisions having five lots or more. Section TV-B-7B-1 makes clear the mandatory dedication provisions. The concept of the Ordinance is to secure recreational lane-"; first, and if that is not possible, then secure payment-in-lieu, and tc require that either the dedication or the payment-in-lieu be absolutely mandatory. The distinction of which method will be utilized comes from the Land Use Plan of the County whether park lands are shown on the plan or not. Section IV-B-7B-2 establishes the 1/35th acre per dwelling unit to be provided in the subdivision. .The only exception would be if the developer wishes to dedicate flood plain land or land with slopes more than 15~, then the amount would be 1/20th of an acre p.er dwelling. Section IV-B-7B- 3 allows recreational land on the borders of property, should that be the most efficient area to use for that and adjoining subdivisions. Section IV-B-7B-4 requires that any private recreational facilities that a developer might wish to establish above the amount required by the County have the same quality standards as required by the Ordinance. Regarding the method of dedication, Section IV-B-7B-5 provides for a conveyance to a home owners association for a private recreation facility. Section IV-B- 7B-6, payments-in-lieu of dedication, a formula based on tax assessment and recommended by the Orange County Tax Supervisor would be used. Property received by the County by dedication would be held in trust by the Triangle J Land Conservancy until the County is ready to develop that land. In answer to a question from Commissioner Walker, Collins pointed out that the payment-in-lieu would be required at the time of the final subdivision plan approval or within one year of the approval of the preliminary subdivision plan. The Scotswood project would be exemptec"~~ from the Ordinance since it was already approved. Planning Board Member Steve Kizer stated he was in favor of , recreation but was opposed to the manner in which this Ordinance tried to bring it about. He expressed concern that the County would have a lot of small parcels of land throughout the County that would not be useable. He also noted that the ordinance "took" the property from the developer in an unfair manner. The burden for public use was not being spread over the public. Collins stated that a number of court cases in North Carolina have brought up this issue and the Courts have supported those juris- dictions where this issue has been raised. The North Carolina General AssQmbly has also enacted enabling legislation which permit counties to do what the Ordinance stipulates. Commissioner Walker agreed with the comments. made by Dr. Kizer. He felt it was not necessary to charge an impact fee for recreation. Collins stressed that too much emphasis was being given to the "impact" concept of the ordinance. Municipalities have not been able to keep up in land site acquisition where active development is taking place. The issue of fairness is taken care of by the payment-in-lieu. While large developers can dedicate land, small developers cannot give land but can give money. From eight to ten other municipalities in North Caroling use this method of mandatory dedication. _ zn answer to a question from Chair Willhoit, Collins stated that there was no minimum parcel size because of the greenways. Willhoit pointed out the value of having a minimum lot size indicating if the land