Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
41 <br /> 1 additional written comments before the hearing record is closed." A copy of this letter , in its <br /> 2 entirety, is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Ms. Barrows introduced Planning Director Craig Benedict and asked him to present Items <br /> 5 C1 and C2. Mr. Benedict introduced the newest member of the Planning Department's staff, <br /> 6 Robert Davis of Kernersville, North Carolina. Mr. Davis has ten years of experience in <br /> 7 municipal engineering. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS <br /> 10 1. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS <br /> 11 (a) SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT <br /> 12 (1) Section C.3 Ownership of Open Space <br /> 13 (2) Section D.1 Estate Lot Option <br /> 14 (3) Section D.2 Conservation_Option <br /> 15 (4) Section D.3 Cluster Option <br /> 16 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT <br /> 17 AMENDMENTS <br /> 18 (1) Flexible Development <br /> 19 (2) Open Space <br /> 20 Planning Director Benedict indicated that the Flexible <br /> 21 Development Standard regulations are in two sections of the Code. One has to do with <br /> 22 subdivision regulations and the other has to do with zoning regulations. The Flexible <br /> 23 Development Standards have been reviewed since December of 1998 and the Ordinance <br /> 24 Review Committee (ORC) of the Planning Board has discussed the pros and cons of these <br /> 25 regulations in depth. For example, the intent of the Flexible Development Standards is to <br /> 26 preserve open space and to orient open space in certain locations. However, when the <br /> 27 developers use the regulations they sometimes use them in a way that does not align itself with <br /> 28 that vision. The objective over the next year is to look at the regulations and make sure that <br /> 29 they are used as guidelines for implementation in a way that does align with the vision of the <br /> 30 Board of Commissioners. He said that he intends to present the regulations as they currently <br /> 31 exist and explain the suggested changes. There are four issues that are being reviewed. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 The first issue is the four different approaches for flexible development. They are 1) <br /> 34 conventional, 2) conservation, 3) cluster and 4) estate. Beginning with the estate approach he <br /> 35 stated that this is a four acre lot minimum which would cause a subdivision to be divided into <br /> 36 lots four acres in size. For example, a 100 acre subdivision would be divided into twenty-five <br /> 37 4-acre lots. There have been no estate requests in the time that Flexible Development <br /> 38 Standards have been in existence. A modification is being suggested to this option. However, it <br /> 39 is obviously not the most critical area to address due to lack of interest in this type of <br /> 40 development. He stated that, at this meeting, the conservation and cluster approaches would be <br /> 41 focused upon. The problematic point concerning the conservation approach is that the area <br /> 42 being designated for the conservation area was included on the buyer's deed in fee simple. <br /> 43 Property owners then felt that they could build as they wished on the entire lot, when in fact, <br /> 44 part of that land was in a conservation area. That is the biggest undesirable effect of the <br /> 45 conservation approach. In order to monitor the use of the conservation areas it would require <br /> 46 an extraordinary amount of independent work on the part of county staff. Because of this <br /> 47 concern the Planning Board and Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) have recommended that <br />