Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey, to address the <br />2 question of "how to assure that affordable housing remains affordable" for a recommendation to be <br />3 returned to this Board. <br />4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />5 <br />6 Commissioner Willhoit referred to the Yield Plan. He stated that he understands what the Yield <br />7 Plan is but questions what is meant by "not needing a conventional plan if a flexible plan is being done". It <br />8 states that there is no need to do the Yield Plan if they are not going for the maximum. He asked if going for <br />9 the maximum means only one lot less than the maximum? Marvin Collins replied that it could be one lot less. <br />10 The Yield Plan could reflect characteristics of the soil and of the site. If the developer is attempting to get the <br />11 maximum number of units, they could be pursuing the limit in terms of the permitted zoning. If however, the <br />12 developer is providing lot sizes for specific markets, it could be less than what would be allowed by the Yield <br />13 Plan. Commissioner Willhoit again questioned if this would include a developer who wants to develop 99 out <br />14 of 100 allowed lots. Marvin replied that the Yield Plan is basically the conventional subdivision plan and they <br />15 would need to know how many lots could be developed doing a conventional development. Commissioner <br />16 Willhoit's concern was that a developer would not know how many units were allowed unless they did a yield <br />17 plan. <br />18 <br />19 Marvin Collins and Geof Gledhill agreed to clarify this matter in the proposal. Marvin Collins said <br />20 that page 45 could be revised to read "the applicant may also combine the yield plan and site analysis with <br />21 the flexible development option into a single plan." Another sentence could be added that reads "if an <br />22 applicant uses this options they shall comply with the provisions for determining density in Section E.1. <br />23 <br />24 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, that <br />25 page 45 be modified to read "the applicant may also combine the yield plan and site analysis with the <br />26 flexible development option into a single plan and "if an applicant uses this option they shall comply <br />27 with the provisions for determining density in Section E.1." <br />28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />29 <br />30 Chair Carey suggested reviewing each bulleted option on page 12 and 13. <br />31 <br />32 • Revised Section III-D-1-C: There was consensus on this recommendation. <br />33 • Revised Section IV-D-1-G: There was consensus on this recommendation to refer back to the Zoning <br />34 Ordinance in this item. <br />35 • Revised Section IV-D-10-G: There was consensus on this recommendation to eliminate subsection G.3 <br />36 • Revised Section III-D-1-d: There was consensus on this recommendation <br />37 • Revised Section IV-D-10-B: There was consensus on this recommendation <br />38 Commissioner Willhoit voiced his concern that the Minor Subdivision process includes a <br />39 requirement that there not be dedicated roads. This encourages having each lot empty onto the main road <br />40 so that the road does not have to be dedicated. He asked that the procedure be reversed so that the Minor <br />41 Subdivision is exempted if they have only one entry point to a major road. Those that have multiple entries to <br />42 the major road would then require review. He referred this to the staff for review and recommendation to be <br />43 returned to the Board of Commissioners. <br />44 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to ask <br />45 County staff to review potential issues associated with changing the requirements for access to <br />46 major roads to read "Minor Subdivisions are exempt if they have only one entry point on the major <br />47 road. Those that have multiple entries to the major road would require review." <br />48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />49 • Revised Section IV-D-10-D-5: There was consensus on this recommendation <br />50 • Revised Section IV-D-10-C.3: There was consensus on this recommendation <br />51 9 Revised Section IV-D-10: There was consensus on this recommendation