Agenda - 03-06-1996 - X-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

27 As stressed previously, it is because of these natural and valuable functions that such features are credited toward meeting the open space requirements. A related reason, however, is the association of these features with others, such as natural areas, wildlife corridors, etc. In developing a Comprehensive Resources Map for the county, a "corridor" system resulted, comprised of Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas which overlapped. For example, steep slopes are generally associated with major stream channels and prominent topographic features such as hills and mountains. Associated with the major stream channels are floodplains and wetlands, as well as many identified natural areas and wildlife corridors. Also associated with steep slopes and prominent topographic features are identified natural areas such as Pickards Mountain, McCauley Mountain, Blackwood Mountain, Currie Hill, and others. Additionally, the greatest potential for archeological sites is in major stream corridors. Thus, the overlapping nature of multiple features makes it difficult to draw a distinct line and say one feature may count but other may not. A final reason for crediting "unbuildable" areas (e.g., Primary Conservation Areas) toward meeting the open space requirement is that a common open space standard (e.g., 33%) applies to all land owners. As noted previously, deducting unbuildable areas first, then applying the open space standard will result in some land owners providing 33% open space while others must provide 50%, 67% or more (see Attachment A). A common standard provides a level playing field. Mandatory open space. The specific issue is whether the provision of open space should be voluntary or mandatory. Staff Response. This issue is also a continuation of the discussion preceding the preparation of the Flexible Development proposal. Those persons who advocate mandatory open space argue that open space will not be provided unless it is required. Some developers and surveyors have argued that unless the financial incentives are high enough, a voluntary approach will not be used. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen has also asked the question, what is the success or failure rate of jurisdictions which have tried a voluntary approach. Information concerning success/failure rates is not available, and, even if it were, there is no guarantee that the same results would hold true in Orange County, just as there is no guarantee that a highly successful open space project in Bucks County, Pennsylvania will have the same success in Orange County. Again,the Flexible Development proposal attempts to strike a balance, mandating on that two concept plans be submitted, one for a conventional subdivision and another for an open space subdivision. Combined with educational workshops for land owners, developers, and surveyors, a voluntary approach, evaluated for success, is considered a better way to encourage open space design. Consistency with coals. The specific issue is whether the Flexible Development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of rural character preservation. Staff Response. Several examples are cited to illustrate that the proposal is inconsistent with the goals and objectives, including the following: