Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
also had some questions about having a pond on several properties and how it would be maintained. He <br />asked about the note indicating that dwellings are prohibited on a portion of lot #15. <br />Planning Director Craig Benedict said that each subdivision plan that is submitted to the County <br />is submitted both as a conventional plan (no open space requirement) and a flexible plan (at least 33% open <br />space is required). In this case both a conventional plan and a flexible plan were submitted and the staff and <br />Planning Board approved both of the plans. The developer chose the conventional plan with no open space. <br />He said that any environmental areas, such as the stream buffer, could be incorporated in the lot. He <br />showed on a map the lots and said that the lot sizes were down to .9 acres. Since this project is subdivided <br />by a water quality critical area to the east, the only development that could occur is on the western side of <br />the line on lot 15. The developer has used the amount of density that could be created within the critical <br />area, so lot 15 lies within the protected watershed. He said that the pond would be filled in and would not be <br />part of this development plan. A future road will go through the pond area. In regards to the stream branch, <br />the staff still has the opportunity, as development continues deeper into the Upper Eno critical area, to <br />suggest open space planning for flexible development to preserve the stream buffer. Also, incorporated in <br />this conventional plan, there is a stub out of a public road to future undeveloped properties to the south. <br />Chair Carey asked about the difference in the number of lots and Craig Benedict said that there <br />would be 15 lots in the flexible plan and 15 lots in the conventional plan. <br />Commissioner Brown made reference to the fiscal impact analysis and asked about the net loss <br />between expenditures far County public services and the revenues that would come from this subdivision. <br />Craig Benedict said that the fiscal impact analysis needed to be updated. It has not been <br />updated to include the current rates. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that he has a problem with accepting the payment in lieu instead of <br />the stream buffer. <br />Craig Benedict said that at this location it did not seem that the staff was ready to suggest <br />dedication of one acre versus payment in lieu in this case. He said that the staff is continuing to look at the <br />best way to handle preservation of these areas. <br />Commissioner Gordon agrees with Commissioner Jacobs' concerns. <br />A motion was made by Chair Carey to approve a preliminary plan for the proposed Bricewood <br />Acres subdivision, located on a 27.04-acre tract near the intersection of Governor Scott and Mill Creek roads <br />in Cedar Grave Township. <br />THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. <br />Commissioner Jacobs would like some more detailed information about how this fits into <br />adjoining waterways and properties. He would like the staff to talk to Mr. Phelps and Mr. Yuhasz about <br />whether there might be another approach to protecting the stream buffer. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown to send the <br />preliminary plan for Bricewood Acres back for additional information. <br />VOTE: AYES, 3; NO, 1 (Chair Carey} <br />f. RFP Award - Printing of the Chapel HilllOrange County Visitors Guide <br />The Board considered awarding a bid to Hickory Printing of Raleigh in the amount of $28,386 for <br />the printing of 40,000 Orange County visitor guides. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if the brochures went to the welcome centers on the interstates. <br />He suggested that these brochures go to the welcome centers outside of the County. <br />A copy of this brochure will be distributed to the members of the Board. <br />Commissioner Gordon clarified that the County pays for all of the expenses of the brochure. <br />A copy of this brochure will be brought back to the meeting on April 11 rn <br />9. ITEMS FOR DECISION -REGULAR AGENDA <br />a. Long-term Housing Affordability Policy <br />The Board considered approving along-term housing affordability policy. <br />Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes said that this policy has been <br />developed to present to the Board strategies that would promote the Commissioners' interest in retaining <br />properties that have been assisted with public funds in the County's affordable housing inventory. She <br />started on page two with the impact fee reimbursement program. She gave examples of the strategies for <br />ensuring long-term affordability, including the impact fee reimbursement program, the land trust model, and <br />the new and existing first-time homebuyer program. She made reference to equity sharing and said that if <br />during the period of affordability a buyer chooses to sell their property, the County will ask them to sell the <br />property to another qualified homebuyer. If the seller chooses a qualified buyer, they are able to retain 100% <br />of the equity of the sale. If the seller does not sell the property to a qualified buyer, therefore losing the <br />