Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
amendments would appropriately strengthen some of the current open space requirements for <br />cluster developments in ways that will more adequately protect the Cane Creek water supply. <br />Although our Board of Directors has not had sufficient opportunity to review the proposed <br />amendments in detail, we generally support their adoption and look forward to providing <br />additional written comments before the hearing record is closed." A copy of this letter, in its <br />entirety, is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. <br />Barrows introduced Planning Director Craig Benedict and asked him to present Items C1 <br />and C2. Benedict introduced the newest member of the Planning Department staff, Robert <br />Davis of Kernersville, North Carolina. Mr. Davis has ten years of experience in municipal <br />engineering. <br />C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS <br />1. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS <br />(a) SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT <br />(1) Section C.3 Ownership of Open Space <br />(2) Section D.1 Estate Lot Option <br />(3) Section D.2 Conservation Option <br />(4) Section D.3 Cluster Option <br />2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT <br />AMENDMENTS <br />(1) Flexible Development <br />(2) Open Space <br />Benedict indicated that the Flexible Development Standard <br />regulations are in two sections of the code. One has to do with subdivision regulations and the <br />other has to do with zoning regulations. The Flexible Development Standards have been <br />reviewed since December of 1998 and the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) of the Planning <br />Board has discussed the pros and cons of these regulations in depth. For example, the intent of <br />the Flexible Development Standards is to preserve open space and to orient open space in <br />certain locations. However, when the developers use the regulations they sometimes use them <br />in a way that does not align itself with that vision. The objective over the next year is to look at <br />the regulations and make sure that they are used as guidelines for implementation in a way that <br />does align with the vision of the Board of Commissioners. He said that he intends to present the <br />regulations as they currently exist and then explain the suggested changes. There are four <br />issues that are being reviewed. <br />The first issue is the four different approaches for flexible development. They are 1) <br />conventional, 2) conservation, 3) cluster and 4) estate. Beginning with the estate approach <br />Benedict stated that this is a four-acre lot minimum, which would cause a subdivision to be, <br />divided into lots four acres in size. For example, a 100-acre subdivision would be divided into <br />twenty-five 4-acre lots. There have been no estate requests in the time that Flexible <br />Development Standards have been in existence. A modification is being suggested to this <br />option. However, it is obviously not the most critical area to address due to lack of interest in <br />this type of development. He stated that, at this meeting, the conservation and cluster <br />approaches would be focused upon. The problematic point concerning the conservation <br />approach is that the area being designated for the conservation area was included on the <br />buyer's deed in fee simple. Property owners then felt that they could build as they wished on <br />the entire lot, when in fact, part of that land was in a conservation area. That is the biggest <br />undesirable effect of the conservation approach. In order to monitor the use of the conservation