Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Benedict stated that developers have, in fact, attempted to use those setbacks as open <br />space. He indicated that open space is supposed to be located in contiguous open stretches, <br />however, developers have attempted to use areas not intended to be considered open space. <br />Hopefully, some of those loopholes have been closed. <br />Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 16, 3`d bullet "...house lots should abut <br />undivided open space..." and suggested that the phrase "where possible" be included. A <br />significant natural area could exist which would be situated in such a way that it would not be <br />possible to design the subdivision with the majority of the lots abutting it. He also asked if there <br />is a requirement that utility lines be buried. <br />Benedict indicated that they could reword this section to include Commissioner Jacobs <br />comments. With regard to the utilities, he thought that they are all required to be underground. <br />He indicated that they would double check this and report back to the Board of County <br />Commissioners. <br />Chair Gordon referred to page 11, bullet #4 and asked how developers could make <br />sure that their open space is contiguous to that located on adjacent lots. <br />Benedict stated that this can be accomplished during the lot layout design by making <br />sure that resources are not isolated. He mentioned that they expect the developer to come up <br />with several different options so that they can see which works best for the circumstances. This <br />will not be a mandate. It will be worded so that it is clear that this will be accomplished wherever <br />possible. <br />bullet. <br />Chair Gordon agreed that the phrase "where possible" should be included in this <br />QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS <br />Steve Yuhasz spoke in opposition to these amendments. He commented that there was <br />no incentive for a developer to build a Flexible Development. The goals of flexible development <br />are reasonable, however, these amendments are designed to discourage using these <br />standards. He stated that the estate option which requires 50% open space, none of which can <br />be used as side or rear setbacks, actually requires 73% of the lot be open space. He stated that <br />there was no incentive to use this option. He referred to Section C.3 and commented that it <br />was not clear if the intent was to make all restrictive covenants irrevocable or just those parts <br />that refer to the ownership of the common areas. <br />Attorney Gledhill stated that this refers only to the area that the County actually <br />regulates. <br />Yuhasz referred to the conservation cluster option, which addresses the length to <br />width ratio of four-to-one. He asked who determines if a specific area is to be designated a <br />wildlife corridor or a neighborhood common. There needs to be guidelines, which make this, <br />more clear. He mentioned that the issue of using setbacks as open space could be resolved by <br />prohibiting the use of fences. If the land was not subdivided by fences it would then be <br />contiguous open space area.