Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
83 <br /> for review/comment consistent with the Joint <br /> Planning Agreement. Application of the Flexible <br /> Development provisions within the Rural Buffer has <br /> not been proposed so that a similar process might be <br /> undertaken with the two municipalities. <br /> Katz asked if there was anything in the Joint <br /> Planning Agreement that would preclude open space <br /> development. Collins responded that it could be <br /> done under the current duster provisions. <br /> Open space percentage. The specific issue is that <br /> the percentage of open space required (e.g. ,33%) is <br /> too low. <br /> Collins reviewed the suggested alternatives (a copy <br /> an attachment to these minutes on page ) . <br /> Barrows noted that public hearing comment seemed to <br /> indicate a desire for a higher percentage than 33%. <br /> Allison asked how the 33% open space requirement <br /> applied to buildable land compares to the Carrboro <br /> Plan. Collins responded by reviewing the Comparison <br /> of Open Space Percentage Standards (an attachment to <br /> these minutes on page ) . <br /> Rosemond referred to a letter from Bob Hall in the <br /> agenda attachments which indicates the carrying <br /> capacity of land in Orange County is about one unit <br /> to two acres. Thus, requiring 33% is not much <br /> progress. If density bonuses are added and multi-lot <br /> sewage systems are allowed, density could be <br /> increased beyond the current standards. She asked <br /> for discussion of this concern noting that if the <br /> assumptions are correct, this would address her <br /> greatest fear. <br /> Collins commented that some of these issues were <br /> discussed by the Planning Board on October 10, 1995. <br /> He assured the Board that, if the decision is 50% of <br /> buildable area, not one developer will pursue an <br /> open space plan. All developers will choose a <br /> conventional plan except those who are truly <br /> altruistic. Collins continued that if the Board <br /> wants 50%, then the issue of mandatory versus option <br /> must be considered. He noted that developers and <br /> surveyors have indicated to him that the only way to <br /> achieve 50% of buildable <br /> area then, it must be mandatory. <br /> Waddell noted that, while a lot of progress was not <br /> made, the Board had been given much information to <br /> consider. <br />