Minutes - 19990524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner Carey asked what types of uses were being considered for the open space in its new form under the ownership of quasi-public organizations. Benedict stated that if it were controlled by the homeowners association the regulations would be in the covenants which would establish and describe allowable uses, for example, jogging/hiking trails, open playground use, private recreation uses, etc. The enforceability provision between homeowners associations and the county is much stronger than dealing one on one with a private property owner. If the land were transferred to another organization, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, homeowners would be aware of the fact that those portions of the land were not owned by them and their options for using that portion of the land restricted. Those restrictions could include that the trees could not be cut down and that public use would, or would not, be allowed. The Triangle Land Conservancy is looking at standardizing agreements. The most important issue is that by having the conservation area as a separate tract the homeowners would be more clear that it is not theirs in fee simple. Commissioner Jacobs asked if any consideration was given to reviewing the 33% open space that is required in the conservation cluster options to determine if that amount of open space is sufficient. Benedict stated that they did look at that issue. Staff is in the process of developing a model, which would show how much open space is necessary for a buildable lot. He commented that he felt we should wait until the soil suitability analysis is completed prior to changing this number. He stated that if the lots were smaller there would be a tighter open space constraint. Staff will be looking at this over the summer and present their findings in the fall. Chair Gordon asked Benedict to compare the cluster option and the conservation cluster option in terms of the number of lots allowed. Benedict indicated that in both the original cluster option and the new conservation cluster option the number of lots allowed is the same. The only change is that the ownership of the conservation area would not rest with the landowner. However, it is possible that the conservation cluster option would result in a slightly smaller number of lots. He mentioned that the Planning staff will be looking at the minimum lot size standards. Over the course of the summer many standards will be reviewed. These include the Protected Watershed Standards, Critical Area Watershed Standards, and the Cane Creek Reservoir Regulations. They want to make sure that those regulations being implemented on top of the minimum lot size work in the manner in which they are intended. They will present various scenarios to see how the different standards actually impact the different options. In response to a question, Benedict stated that the 5,000 square foot lot option was deleted because in any scenario they came up with, it would not be possible to use. Planner Karen Lincoln stated that for the majority of the county where the subdivisions would be located the zoning is either A-R or R-1 and the minimum lot size in both of those districts is 40,000 square feet. The minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet would be allowed only in R-8 zoning which is unlikely in the County. Also, within the protected watersheds, the septic facilities must be on the lot where the residence is located. That requires approximately 40,000 square feet for the residence, septic system and repair area. The land would have to be in a