Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
45 <br /> 1 This needs to be approached carefully so that a unexpected burden is not created on <br /> 2 conventional developments. Also, in the future, the Planning Staff will review roadside buffer <br /> 3 requirements in the-future. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Commissioner Carey referred to page 5, Article 22, Definitions (a) and asked if there <br /> 6 had been cases where developers attempted to use front and side yard setbacks as open <br /> 7 space. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Mr. Benedict stated that developers have, in fact, attempted to use those setbacks as <br /> 10 open space. He indicated that open space is supposed to be located in contiguous open <br /> 11 stretches, however, developers have attempted to use areas not intended to be considered <br /> 12 open space. Hopefully, some of those loopholes have been closed. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 16, 3rd--bullet"...house lots should abut <br /> 15 undivided open space..." and suggested that the phrase "where possible" be included. A <br /> 16 significant natural area could exist which would be situated in such a way that it would not be <br /> 17 possible to design the subdivision with the majority of the lots abutting it. He also asked--if there <br /> 18 is a requirement that utility lines be buried. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Mr. Benedict indicated that they could reword this section to include Commissioner <br /> 21 Jacobs comments. With regard to the utilities, he thought that they are all required to be <br /> 22 underground. He indicated that they would double check this and report back to the Board of <br /> 23 County Commissioners. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Chair Gordon referred to page 11, bullet#4 and asked how developers could make <br /> 26 sure that their open space is contiguous to that located'on adjacent lots. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Mr. Benedict stated that this can be accomplished during the lot layout design by <br /> 29 making sure that resources are not isolated. He mentioned that they expect the developer to <br /> 30 come up with several different options so that they can see which works best for the <br /> 31 circumstances. This will not be a mandate. It will be worded so that it is clear that this will be <br /> 32 accomplished wherever possible. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Chair Gordon agreed that the phrase "where possible" should be included in this <br /> 35 bullet. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Mr. Steve Yuhasz spoke in opposition to these amendments. He commented that there <br /> 40 was no incentive for a developer to build a Flexible Development. The goals of flexible <br /> 41 development are reasonable, however, these amendments are designed to discourage using <br /> 42 these standards. He stated that the estate option which requires 50% open space, none of <br /> 43 which can be used as side or rear setbacks, actually requires 73% of the lot be open space. He <br /> 44 stated that there was no incentive to use this options. He referred to Section C.3 and <br /> 45 commented that it was not clear if the intent was to make all restrictive covenants irrevocable or <br /> 46 just those parts that refer to the ownership of the common areas. <br /> 47 <br />