Browse
Search
ORD-1999-015 Text Amendments Development Standards in Cane Creek Watershed
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 1990-1999
>
1999
>
ORD-1999-015 Text Amendments Development Standards in Cane Creek Watershed
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/25/2013 2:53:22 PM
Creation date
9/25/2013 2:52:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/19/1999
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
9c
Document Relationships
Agenda - 10-19-1999 - 9c
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1990's\1999\Agenda - 10-19-1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
39 <br /> Cane Creek Water4ad Staff Repm t <br /> Orange County Pawning and Inspections Deputment <br /> Watery Fork would,be needed. OWASA would acquire 1377 acres of land(413 through <br /> fee-simple and 964 through conservation easements). <br /> Option 3:Large Lot!Creative Open Space Design (OWASA Recommended) <br /> Rezone watershed to.5-acre lot zoning(with up to five two-acre lots for lots of record), or <br /> 'Creative Open Space Design'with 50%open-space and current two-acre zoning(1-acre <br /> minimum lot size).Possible construction of tributary detention on Caterpillar or Tom's <br /> Creek,depending on participation rate in cluster development and effective lot size of <br /> developed lots. OWASA acquisition of 1266 acres of land. <br /> All of the options are capable of protecting water quality to the same general level. Differences <br /> lie in the certainty of water quality protection,the substantive variation in the ability of the <br /> options to meet other non-water quality considerations, and perhaps in the economic feasibility <br /> - of each option.The benefits offered under each options are as varied.as the.differences. <br /> Mandatory Flexible Development/Large Lot uses ari existing,known program and may <br /> provide greater developer flexibility in site design,since only 33%of the tract would be required <br /> to remain in open space.Additionally,land acquisition by OWASA and the focus on non- <br /> structural controls in the critical area adds to the certainty of protecting water quality-although <br /> regional-scale structural controls in the rest of the watershed may offset any gain in certainty and <br /> the downzoning in the critical area would affect property owners. <br /> Creative Open Space Design guarantees that 501/6 of all new major subdivisions will be open <br /> space and may minimize land owner costs,since there would be no change in zoning.As a result <br /> it offers significant resource protection benefits that transcend water quality and could also <br /> preserve natural areas and wildlife habitats,flora and fauna and cultural or archaeological <br /> resources.It would,however,result in higher costs to OWASA customers due to needed <br /> structural controls. <br /> The Large Lot/Creative Open Space Design("OWASA Recommended").is a hybrid of two <br /> options recommended by OWASA.It offers the most developer familiarity-using conventional <br /> single-family lots without open space set-asides.The lower residential yield and density should <br /> reduce the level of public services provided by the County to serve development,but also affects <br /> landowner impacts:This option offers the highest certainty of protecting water quality,but the <br /> exact level of certainty may depend on the level of participation in the"clustering"option. <br /> Preliminary Staff Recommendation. . <br /> Having identified three alternatives for consideration, staff plans.to use.further research and <br /> feedback from the Board and stakeholders to make a final recommendation for the November 23, <br /> 1998 public hearing: Regardless of the management options ultimately selected,_staff feels that <br /> implementation through amending existing Cane Creek watershed zoning districts and/or a <br /> special section in the Flexible Development provisions for Cane Creek(please see page.31 of <br /> staff report) would be the best approach.Tinally, the OWASA recommendations on potential <br /> "tradeoffs" to the watershed community were not evaluated herein, since they,do not relate to <br /> water quality. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.