Minutes - 19860527 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

space was too small to be useable for recreation purposes, then payment- in-lieu should be required. Commissioner Lloyd questioned how the County would use the small tracts that would be dedicated. Collins showed' some examples of how a greenway pattern could be developed over a number of years. The amount of land and the monies received as payment-in-lieu would be reviewed each year. The monies would be used to develop the donated recreation land. . Commissioner Walker stated that while he was in favor of recreation, it was not in agreement with the method of financing. He questioned whether the developer or the final consumer- was actually paying the recreation fee. Collins pointed out that while a developer might want to pass on the cost, he would be receiving tax benefits for his donation. Walker again restated his concern that the developer would have to pay out up front while the area might not be impacted for a number of years. Chair Don Willhoit suggested that the payment could be made in a number of installments where the development was to be phased in over a long period of time. The delayed payments would be determined by the value of the land at the time of payment. In response to a question from Barry Jacobs, Collins said that he looped the sites on the Sgr—vgy of Natural and Cultural Resources would be incorporated into the Land Use Plan. COMMENTg OR QUESTIQNS FROM THE CITIZENS Richard Ward, member of the Recreation and Parks Council, reported that the Council unanimously endorsed the Subdivision Regulations Amendments. They felt that the changes as outlined by Marvin Collins did address those concerns expressed by the Council. Kirk Pelland, Chapel Hill. Township Advisory Council Member, feels that the effect of this impact fee cannot be visualized at this time. There seems to be confusion as to whether or not this is the sole source of income for recreation land in the County. He asked if there are other municipalities that acquire land for recreational purposes in this way. Marvin Collins• indicated that Chapel Hill does acquire land for their greenways through similar ordinances, as does Raleigh and other municipalities. d. section IV Sub s�ectign IV-B-8 Landscanina and Buffer Standards Marvin Collins indicated this proposed amendment would not only define the types of buffers required for different types of land uses but provides some guidance for design standards for them. In addition to buffer requirements, the amendment would protect existing vegetation by encouraging developers to retain the vegetation wherever possible .in order to meet the landscaping standards in the ordinance. Section IV-B-8-B-1 is a section which designates tree preservation areas. These are areas which have existing trees and defines two types of protection areas. He showed on a map that portion which would be considered a- tree preservation area. The primary tree protection area would be those areas for recreation, open space and set-back areas. Areas that could be cleared would be street right-of-ways, utility rights-of-way and the builtable portion of the lot. The Ordinance Review Committee has suggested that the tree size for determining whether the tree may be cut, damaged or destroyed be changed from one foot in diameter to 4-1/2 feet above ground