ORD-1999-015 Text Amendments Development Standards in Cane Creek Watershed

Browse Search

� 9 49 0 R� — /17 `1,7 - en e,� Z�) - / - C. Text Amendments - Development Standards in Cane Creek Watershed 9 The Board considered proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision regulations that will implement new development standards for the Cane Creek watershed. Craig Benedict made this presentation. He gave some background on the Cane Creek watershed studies that were started in 1994. The suggestions of those studies was to determine if a change in the lot size requirements in the Cane Creek reservoir area, which is presently two acres per unit, should be decreased to increase water quality. The results of those studies have come forward to offer two recommendations. The first recommendation is that the first ten acres of a development be split into two-acre lots, and afterwards, the lots can be five acres. He said that this recommendation allows that 68% of the property owners within the Cane Creek watershed area would not be affected because they have ten acres or less. He clarified that this is 68% of the property owners, not 68% of the acreage in the Cane Creek watershed. With this recommendation, there would be a decrease of 27 lots from the existing zoning conditions. The second recommendation is that there would be a 50% open space requirement, and the developer or applicant could still have 50 one-acre lots and 50 acres of open space. He pointed out that there would still be a lot of density in this area and the water quality could be jeopardized. He said that the Planning Board approved the first recommendation. The administration suggested, allowing for some flexible development, retaining 50% open space, but having a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres. The administration's recommendation is to imply the five-lot, two-acre, five-acre thereafter option; and also the cluster down provision where there is 50% open space and a 1.5-acre lot minimum. Craig Benedict gave some history of lot sizes in Bingham Township since 1980 and said that there is a lot of large lot development under natural circumstances. He said that this recommendation would remove the possibility of small lot development in the reservoir area. He said that Bingham Township has been the fastest growing township in Orange County, second to the Chapel Hill Township. He said that these zoning changes support other County goals besides water quality. He pointed out that there was a prime interest for this particular watershed because it lies completely within Orange County. Bernadette Pelissier clarified OWASA's recommendation. She was not a board member at the time of the study in 1997. She said that there were two parts to the OWASA recommendation that was done in 1997. The first part was the large lot zoning of five acres, and OWASA saw this as necessary for water quality purposes. The other part was the flexible development to help compensate landowners, and had nothing to do with OWASA's water quality concerns. She wanted to clarify that the second part of the recommendation was not motivated by water quality concerns. Commissioner Jacobs said that he was a board member at the time of the study and that Bernadette P's statement was not a true statement. Bill Strom said that, in his opinion, the clustering option would facilitate additional density and additional growth in the Bingham Township. He thinks that this counters the water protection goal. He is very supportive of the five two-acre /five-acre option. This option has worked very well in the University Lake watershed. He believes that the best approach is to take Randal Ardent's density neutral approach that the density in clusters should be based on the actual perk ability of the lots under the standard zoning. He emphasized that the primary issue is water quality and not land values. Commissioner Brown asked about the 50% open space requirement and the rationale behind it. Craig Benedict explained the present requirement, which does not require any open space. The second plan is the University Lake watershed scenario, which creates larger lots, but open space occurs on the lots. He said that the 50% open space provision could give open space in an area that could be protected. Commissioner Brown pointed out that the Planning Board recommendation is actually increasing the OWASA recommendation by 10 units and is not a watershed protection method. Commissioner Jacobs said that when the watershed study took place and when the recommendation was formulated, the Planning Director at that time attempted to coordinate with Orange County's Flexible Open Space Ordinance. He said that the reasoning behind promoting a cluster was because, not only would it provide contiguous open space, but it also provides other advantages: it reduces the road, it reduces the necessity to disturb land by utilities, and by having the homes clustered