Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
99 <br /> is whether more disincentives should be added to <br /> discourage conventional development and fewer <br /> incentives provided to encourage more open space set <br /> asides. <br /> Rosemond asked that Mr. Knight comment more fully on <br /> what he felt would be incentives for landowners and <br /> developers. Mr. Knight responded that he felt the <br /> overall concept of the proposal is good; a skeleton <br /> that needs some meat to make it work. He used estate <br /> lots as an example. Instead of mandating 4-acre <br /> lots, he felt the objectives would be met with 4- <br /> acre average lot size. These are the kinds of <br /> incentives that would appeal to landowners and <br /> developers. Developers are only going to invest <br /> their money in an area where they can get a return <br /> on it and there is a market for that product. He <br /> felt there would be no problem with the educational <br /> aspect. He noted that he did not feel that <br /> landowners and developers are opposed to the concept <br /> of the proposal at all. It has to make physical <br /> sense; if it does not, they will not be interested <br /> in making it happen. <br /> Barrows stated that she would rather accentuate the <br /> incentives rather than "piling on" more <br /> disincentives. It is important that people see this <br /> as a positive. <br /> Katz asked if there are any disincentives currently <br /> in the ordinance. Waddell responded that nothing <br /> really changes for traditional subdivisions. The <br /> incentives are to go the other way. <br /> Jobsis asked about the disincentive/incentive <br /> regarding private roads. Collins responded that <br /> there are incentives in flexible development that <br /> would allow more lots accessing private roads. <br /> Waddell noted that the only disincentive is the one <br /> requiring two plans. <br /> Katz noted that there could be a disincentive in <br /> regard to density bonuses. There could be a mid- <br /> point, where, if a plan goes below that point, the <br /> applicant would be allowed less than the yield plan. <br /> Brown asked that Collins review the incentives and <br /> how they apply to each category. Collins responded <br /> that there are incentives for each option. As an <br /> example, in estate lots, the minimum required lot <br /> width can be reduced to 100-feet from 130-feet, T- <br /> turnarounds could be used instead of cul-de-sacs, <br /> the minimum required lot frontage could be reduced <br /> to not less than 20 feet for flag lots from 50 feet. <br />