Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
46 <br /> I Attorney Gledhill stated that this refers only to the area that the County actually <br /> 2 regulates. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Mr. Yuhasz referred to the conservation cluster option which addresses the length to <br /> 5 width ratio of four-to-one. He asked who determines if a specific area is to be designated a <br /> 6 wildlife corridor or a neighborhood common? There needs to be guidelines which make this <br /> 7 more clear. He mentioned that the issue of using setbacks as open space could be resolved by <br /> 8 prohibiting the use of fences. If the land was not subdivided by fences it would then be <br /> 9 contiguous open space area. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Chair Barrows asked Attorney Gledhill if another public hearing would need to be held if <br /> 12 the wording in the proposed amendments was changed prior to being returned to the Board of <br /> 13 County Commissioners. <br /> 14 <br /> is Attorney Gledhill felt that would not be necessary, however, he indicated that he would <br /> 16 look at that question more specifically prior to the Planning Board's recommendations being <br /> 17 returned to the Board of County Commissioners. If, at that time, he determined that another <br /> IS public hearing is necessary, he will advise the Board of County Commissioners. <br /> 19 <br /> zo Planning Board member Katz stated that the conservation option as it currently exists <br /> Z1 has been a failure. Side yards were used by almost all of the developers as open space. The <br /> Z2 proposal being presented does present clear conservation areas. Developers using this new <br /> 23 options would be creating beautiful open space for recreation. Under the plan in place now it <br /> 24 was hit or miss as to whether that would happen. <br /> Z5 <br /> Z6 Commissioner Jacobs commented that a logical solution to this situation is to decide if <br /> 17 Flexible Development should be mandatory. He asked staff and the Planning Board to consider <br /> 18 this as an option. <br /> !9 <br /> 10 Mr. Benedict agreed that the new standards are not going to have developers lining up <br /> ;I to use the conservation cluster options, however, it does delete an option that was <br /> 12 dysfunctional. He hoped to come forward with a Flexible Development option later in the year <br /> 13 after full consideration of the issue. This proposal will be both feasible, from the development <br /> 34 standpoint, and attractive with regard to the preservation goals. <br /> 16 <br /> 16 Commissioner Jacobs said that if the proposal being suggested this evening does not <br /> ;7 generate, even in the short term, more flexible open space application, he would argue that we <br /> IS have gone in the wrong direction. Possibly requiring flexible development in the short term, <br /> 19 while the issue is being further researched and improved, might result in some flexible <br /> 40 development. <br /> 12 Commissioner Brown commented on Commissioner Jacobs suggestion that the <br /> 13 Planning Department staff return with more recommendations on flexible development, <br /> A including making flexible development mandatory. She asked if Mr. Benedict would return with <br /> E6 those suggestions in the fall. <br />