Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
87 <br /> It would be very cost prohibitive to keep reducing <br /> the total tract size. The floodplains, wetlands, <br /> steep slopes, etc. are automatically preserved <br /> because of the nature of that area. To exclude any <br /> more, it does preserve rural character, but it <br /> "flogs in the face of affordable housing" , which is <br /> also a goal of Orange County Board of Commissioners. <br /> She continued that Orange County is already one of <br /> the more expensive places to buy land. <br /> Brown asked for clarification that wetlands and <br /> steep slopes are already considered "set aside" . <br /> Stancil responded that there is a category in the <br /> Land Use Plan, Resource Protection Areas, which <br /> identifies those and signifies them as important <br /> areas. They include 100-Year Floodplains, areas of <br /> steep slopes and alluvial soils. Those areas are <br /> already protected through the category, Resource <br /> Protection Areas. Brown continued, that if they are <br /> excluded, because they cannot be built on anyway, it <br /> would seem that we should be dealing with whatever <br /> percentage of buildable area. Stancil referred to a <br /> table in a memo from Collins titled Comparison of <br /> Open Space Percentage Standards. He noted that the <br /> table illustrates how a 100-acre tract with <br /> different types of unbuildable area might function <br /> in some of the options. Provision of a certain <br /> percentage of open space will actually yield more <br /> than that percentage. For example, a required 33% <br /> subtracting out the unbuildable land could result in <br /> 57% open space requirement. <br /> Rosemond noted that it could also go the other way. <br /> If someone has 33% unbuildable land there would be <br /> the possibility of density bonuses on land that, <br /> under conventional methods, would get no bonuses. <br /> That would provide rewards for greater density. <br /> Stancil responded that if they were in the <br /> transition areas or transit corridors that might be <br /> a possibility. Rosemond emphasized, depending on <br /> the site, it could go either way. <br /> Brown noted that there would then be no open space <br /> applicable in the flexible development plan to the <br /> rest of the land because it would already be taken <br /> up. Stancil responded that if there were 33% primary <br /> open space, then the requirement would be satisfied. <br /> Brown continued that the development would then be <br /> under no flexible development plan providing open <br /> space. Stancil responded that it would depend on how <br /> the Board wishes to value unbuildable land. In the <br /> Plan it is given a value by stating that it is a <br /> Resource Protection Area; it is recognized as a <br /> valuable resource. Brown responded that this would <br />