Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
22 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> TO. ORANGE COUNTY PL BOARD <br /> �C3�c9t,c1 <br /> FROM. MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR <br /> DATE: JANUARY 4, 1996 <br /> SUBJECT: FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL <br /> COPIES. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br /> JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER <br /> GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY <br /> A public hearing was held on November 27 at the New A.L. Stanback Middle School for the purpose <br /> of receiving citizen comment on the "Flexible Development" proposal. Section VII-D-4 of the <br /> Subdivision Regulations also permits evidence not presented at the public hearing to be submitted in <br /> writing at or prior to the meeting at which the Planning Board prepares a recommendation on the <br /> proposal. Specific issues and/or concerns raised during the public hearing and/or through written <br /> correspondence subsequent to the hearing are summarized below in boldface type. Staffs response is <br /> provided following. <br /> Affordable housing aaalicability. The specific issue is whether it is discriminatory to allow <br /> developers of affordable housing to submit a conventional subdivision plan only. <br /> Staff Response. The provision of affordable housing is a goal of Orange County, and a concern <br /> about "open space" or "flexible development" designs is that they result in "high-end" housing. <br /> Two provisions were added to the Flexible Development proposal to address this concern <br /> specifically. The first provision is contained in Section IV-B-10-G.2, Density Bonuses/To <br /> Encourage Affordable Housing, and was added as an "incentive" to encourage developers to <br /> provide such housing as part of a Flexible Development proposal. The second is contained in <br /> Section III-D-1-c, Concept Plan Approval/Application Requirements, and was added to allow <br /> developers, whose goal was singularly the provision of affordable housing, to forego the <br /> requirement of submitting a Flexible Development plan. As part of the Planning Board's <br /> discussion of this provision, wording was added to"encourage"applicants to submit such as plan. <br /> Groundwater resources- quantity and quality. The specific issue is whether cluster lots will <br /> be subject to well failures because of the number and proximity of wells. <br /> Staff Response. At the request of the Water Resources Committee, the Board of Commissioners <br /> has provided matching funds through which to finance a study of the groundwater resources of <br /> the county. The study is being jointly funded and undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey, and <br /> is scheduled for completion by the end of this fiscal year. The study will provide information <br /> about the availability, quantity, and quality of groundwater as well as guidance concerning well <br />