Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Craig Benedict made this presentation. He gave some background on the Cane Creek <br />watershed studies that were started in 1994. The suggestions of those studies was to determine if a <br />change in the lot size requirements in the Cane Creek reservoir area, which is presently two acres per <br />unit, should be decreased to increase water quality. The results of those studies have come forward to <br />offer two recommendations. The first recommendation is that the first ten acres of a development be split <br />into two-acre lots, and afterwards, the lots can be five acres. He said that this recommendation allows that <br />68% of the property owners within the Cane Creek watershed area would not be affected because they <br />have ten acres or less. He clarified that this is 68% of the property owners, not 68% of the acreage in the <br />Cane Creek watershed. With this recommendation, there would be a decrease of 27 lots from the existing <br />zoning conditions. The second recommendation is that there would be a 50% open space requirement, <br />and the developer or applicant could still have 50 one-acre lots and 50 acres of open space. He pointed <br />out that there would still be a lot of density in this area and the water quality could be jeopardized. He said <br />that the Planning Board approved the first recommendation. The administration suggested, allowing for <br />some flexible development, retaining 50% open space, but having a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres. The <br />administration's recommendation is to imply the five-lot, two-acre, five-acre thereafter option; and also the <br />cluster down provision where there is 50% open space and a 1.5-acre lot minimum. <br />Craig Benedict gave some history of lot sizes in Bingham Township since 1980 and said that <br />there is a lot of large lot development under natural circumstances. He said that this recommendation <br />would remove the possibility of small lot development in the reservoir area. He said that Bingham <br />Township has been the fastest growing township in Orange County, second to the Chapel Hill Township. <br />He said that these zoning changes support other County goals besides water quality. He pointed out that <br />there was a prime interest for this particular watershed because it lies completely within Orange County. <br />Bernadette Pelissier clarified OWASA's recommendation. She was not a board member at the <br />time of the study in 1997. She said that there were two parts to the OWASA recommendation that was <br />done in 1997. The first part was the large lot zoning of five acres, and OWASA saw this as necessary for <br />water quality purposes. The other part was the flexible development to help compensate landowners, and <br />had nothing to do with OWASA's water quality concerns. She wanted to clarify that the second part of the <br />recommendation was not motivated by water quality concerns. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that he was a board member at the time of the study and that <br />Bernadette P's statement was not a true statement. <br />Bill Strom said that, in his opinion, the clustering option would facilitate additional density and <br />additional growth in the Bingham Township. He thinks that this counters the water protection goal. He is <br />very supportive of the five two-acre I five-acre option. This option has worked very well in the University <br />Lake watershed. He believes that the best approach is to take Randal Ardent's density neutral approach <br />that the density in clusters should be based on the actual perk ability of the lots under the standard zoning. <br />He emphasized that the primary issue is water quality and not land values. <br />Commissioner Brown asked about the 50% open space requirement and the rationale behind <br />it. <br />Craig Benedict explained the present requirement, which does not require any open space. <br />The second plan is the University Lake watershed scenario, which creates larger lots, but open space <br />occurs on the lots. He said that the 50% open space provision could give open space in an area that <br />could be protected. <br />Commissioner Brown pointed out that the Planning Board recommendation is actually <br />increasing the OWASA recommendation by 10 units and is not a watershed protection method. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that when the watershed study took place and when the <br />recommendation was formulated, the Planning Director at that time attempted to coordinate with Orange <br />County's Flexible Open Space Ordinance. He said that the reasoning behind promoting a cluster was <br />because, not only would it provide contiguous open space, but it also provides other advantages: it <br />reduces the road, it reduces the necessity to disturb land by utilities, and by having the homes clustered <br />there is the opportunity to place lots on a property so there is minimal watershed impact. He does think <br />that because of what the consultants have said and because it does achieve so many other goals and <br />objectives that Orange County has as a government and as a community, he is comfortable with looking at <br />clustering. He said that there have been discussions in the past about whether density should be based <br />on the carrying capacity of the property rather than on an inflexible acreage formula. This might be a