Minutes - 20061120 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Tam Eakes asked to make a comment. He lives on Lake Orange. He said that the people on Lake Orange, as well as the people on the other lakes and streams around town, would like to know haw staff will police this and what kind of actions will be taken. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs pointed out that there have been two meetings of the Eno River Confluence -and there was an effort to bring together people that had interest in the Upper Eno, and there was never representation from Lake Orange residents. There will be another one in April. He encouraged the residents to leave information with the Clerk so that they can be invited. 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments: Planning Board and staff initiated amendments to Section IV-B, Conservation-Cluster Option, to modify the perimeter buffer standards to distinguish and develop comparable dimensions between urban versus rural design subdivisions. Planning Supervisor Robert Davis introduced this item. Orange County has three flexible development options -Estate Lot, Conservation Cluster, and Village. This amendment will only affect the conservation cluster option and only the buffer standard and the types of ownership of the buffers. There were modifications in 1999 that placed a 100-foot perimeter building setback buffer on this development option. The original intent of the 100-foot setback was to lessen the impact of higher density clusters of housing on the surrounding, lower density dwellings. The setback has presented challenges in smaller acreage subdivision and also irregularly shaped tracts. There was a situation in Ashwick where an accessary structure could not be built because of the setback. The proposal is to go from the 100-foot setback to a 60-foot setback owned by the homeowner's association. The 100-foot setback requirement will remain in rural areas along roadways. The staff would like to get this back to the Planning Board to set up an Ordinance Review Committee to review this more thoroughly. Chair Jacobs said that his initial impression is that in the urbanizing areas, it seems to make more sense. He suggested putting the map in the abstract and giving the County Commissioners more information on the buffer requirements. Chair Jacobs questioned the faith that the Homeowner's Association will solve a problem. He said that part of this is based on the assumption that if the Homeowner's Association controlled the buffer, that it would be less likely to be disturbed. Based on his experience, it is just as likely to be the other way around. Robert Davis said that his experience is that people do less encroachment from a structural standpoint when the homeowner's association owns it. Jay Bryan said that he does not recall anyone else asking for anything other than just looking at how to prevent the immediate issue in Ashwick. He does not remember it being expanded to a larger policy issue. Robert Davis said that he recalls that the motion was to consider ways for this not to happen again. Public Comment Steve Yuhasz said that he is not opposed to these buffers, but he thinks that this is indicative of the need to review the entire flexible development process. He said that the proposal of 60 feet would not qualify for any credit as open space to meet the requirements. He thinks that the proposal can work, but it needs to be part of a larger evaluation of the buffer requirements. He said that he is working with a subdivision now where he will have to provide less open space than he would want to in order to meet the requirement that the lots touch on open space. He