Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
43 <br /> 2 Commissioner Carey asked what types of uses were being considered for the open <br /> 3 space in its new form under the ownership of quasi-public organizations. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Mr. Benedict stated that if it were controlled by the homeowners association the <br /> 6 regulations would be in the covenants which would establish and describe allowable uses, for <br /> 7 example, jogging/hiking trails, open playground use, private recreation uses, etc. The <br /> 8 enforceability provision between homeowners associations and the county is much stronger <br /> 9 than dealing one on one with a private property owner. If the land were transferred to another <br /> 10 organization, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, homeowners would be aware of the fact <br /> 11 that those portions of the land were not owned by them and their options for using that portion <br /> 12 of the land was restricted. Those restrictions could include that the trees could not be cut down <br /> 13 and that public use would, or would not, be available. The Triangle Land Conservancy is <br /> 14 looking at standardizing agreements. The most important issue is that by having the <br /> 15 conservation area as a separate tract the homeowners would be more clear that it is not theirs <br /> 16 in fee simple. <br /> 17 - <br /> 18 Commissioner Jacobs asked if any consideration was given to reviewing the 33% open <br /> 19 space that is required in the conservation cluster options to determine if that amount of open <br /> 20 space is sufficient. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Mr. Benedict stated that they did look at that issue. Staff is in the process of <br /> 23 developing a model which would show how much open space is necessary for a buildable lot. <br /> 24 That is determined by the size of the septic field versus the buildable lot. He commented that he <br /> 26 felt we should wait until the soil suitability analysis is completed prior to changing this number. <br /> 26 He stated that if the lots were smaller there would be a tighter open space constraint. Staff will <br /> 27 be looking at this over the summer and present their findings in the fall. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Chair Gordon asked Mr. Benedict to compare the cluster option and the conservation <br /> 30 cluster option in terms of the number of lots allowed. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Mr. Benedict indicated that in both the original cluster option and the new conservation <br /> 33 cluster option the number of lots allowed is the same. The only change is that the ownership of <br /> 34 the conservation areas would not rest with the landowner. However, it is possible that the <br /> 36 conservation cluster option would result in a slightly smaller number of lots. He mentioned that <br /> 36 the Planning staff will be looking at the minimum lot size standards. Over the course of the <br /> 37 summer many standards will be reviewed. These include the Protected Watershed Standards, <br /> 38 Critical Area Watershed Standards, and the Cane Creek Reservoir Regulations. They want to <br /> 39 make sure that those regulations being implemented on top of the minimum lot size work in the <br /> 40 manner in which they are intended. They will present various scenarios to see how the different <br /> 41 standards actually impact the different options. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 In response to a question, Mr. Benedict stated that the 5,000 square foot lot option <br /> 44 was deleted because in any scenario they came up with, it would not be possible to use. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Planner Karen Lincoln stated the majority of the county where the subdivisions would be <br /> 47 located is zoned either A-R or R-1 and the minimum allowed lot size in both of those districts is <br />