Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 Michael Harvey said that his interpretation is that this agreement covers the <br /> 2 development of this project, and if the homeowner wants to amend the agreement, due to a <br /> 3 change in zoning, then they would have to go through a process to do so. The process would <br /> 4 be to come to staff to propose an amendment. <br /> 5 Commissioner Yuhasz said that there should be a formal process identified in order to <br /> 6 do this. He said that if there is a specific agreement within the development agreement that is <br /> 7 different in some way from the general zoning regulation, then it ought to carry forward; but if <br /> 8 the thing in the development agreement is only an agreement to abide by the general zoning <br /> 9 regulations, then as the general zoning regulations change, that agreement ought to change <br /> 10 along with it. <br /> 11 Discussion ensued on this topic. <br /> 12 Commissioner Yuhasz said that because this development agreement contains <br /> 13 specifically negotiated things and also generally applicable things, there needs to be <br /> 14 differentiation within the development agreement to specify which things change automatically <br /> 15 and which things do not. <br /> 16 Michael Harvey said that staff could handle this. <br /> 17 Commissioner Gordon suggested adding "cultural" to page 7-13(F)(2)(a) and replace <br /> 18 "man-made" with that. <br /> 19 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-18 and redesigning public roads. He <br /> 20 said that there was no mention about where you might move a road with significant natural <br /> 21 features. He would like this to be consistently mentioned as a criterion. This is also on page 7- <br /> 22 22. <br /> 23 Craig Benedict said that staff would bring back something in reference to this in Section <br /> 24 7.8.2 about how that it is a consideration during the road design. <br /> 25 Frank Clifton said that if the County is going to allow private roads, then the roads should <br /> 26 be required to be constructed to DOT standards, maybe with a lesser setback. <br /> 27 Chair Foushee said that the Board has had this discussion before and is generally not in <br /> 28 favor of making this requirement. <br /> 29 Commissioner Yuhasz said that at some point the Board needs to look at private road <br /> 30 standards. <br /> 31 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-36 and reservation of school sites and <br /> 32 said that there are almost no land use criteria. Even though the school systems have to pick a <br /> 33 site by law, the County has to approve it. Since the County possesses the expertise, it would be <br /> 34 good to offer some guidance. <br /> 35 Commissioner Gordon said that the language sounds like there has to be agreement <br /> 36 first anyway. <br /> 37 Craig Benedict said that he could put language about joint approval. <br /> 38 Frank Clifton said that one of the issues for schools is the availability of water and sewer. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-41 and asked about private recreation <br /> 41 and if this counted as the total recreation. Craig Benedict said that the development must have <br /> 42 the minimum listed and private recreation is at least a minimum. He said that he would like to <br /> 43 rewrite this so that it is clearer. <br /> 44 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-42 under Cluster Developments, which <br /> 45 has "generally," and the County Commissioners talked about taking these out at the last work <br /> 46 session. <br /> 47 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-47(7) and said that it should say "low- <br /> 48 impact" and not "passive." Also, in listing all of the different purposes, it does not really mention <br /> 49 connectivity to open space on adjoining properties or wildlife corridors, but on the next page it <br /> 50 does list these. <br /> \ <br />