Orange County NC Website
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey, to address the <br /> 2 question of"how to assure that affordable housing remains affordable" for a recommendation to be <br /> 3 returned to this Board. <br /> 4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Commissioner Willhoit referred to the Yield Plan. He stated that he understands what the Yield <br /> 7 Plan is but questions what is meant by"not needing a conventional plan if a flexible plan is being done". It <br /> 8 states that there is no need to do the Yield Plan if they are not going for the maximum. He asked if going for <br /> 9 the maximum means only one lot less than the maximum? Marvin Collins replied that it could be one lot less. <br /> 10 The Yield Plan could reflect characteristics of the soil and of the site. If the developer is attempting to get the <br /> 11 maximum number of units, they could be pursuing the limit in terms of the permitted zoning. If however, the <br /> 12 developer is providing lot sizes for specific markets, it could be less than what would be allowed by the Yield <br /> 13 Plan. Commissioner Willhoit again questioned if this would include a developer who wants to develop 99 out <br /> 14 of 100 allowed lots. Marvin replied that the Yield Plan is basically the conventional subdivision plan and they <br /> 15 would need to know how many lots could be developed doing a conventional development. Commissioner <br /> 16 Willhoit's concern was that a developer would not know how many units were allowed unless they did a yield <br /> 17 plan. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Marvin Collins and Geof Gledhill agreed to clarify this matter in the proposal. Marvin Collins said <br /> 20 that page 45 could be revised to read "the applicant may also combine the yield plan and site analysis with <br /> 21 the flexible development option into a single plan." Another sentence could be added that reads "if an <br /> 22 applicant uses this options they shall comply with the provisions for determining density in Section E.1. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, that <br /> 25 page 45 be modified to read "the applicant may also combine the yield plan and site analysis with the <br /> 26 flexible development option into a single plan and "if an applicant uses this option they shall comply <br /> 27 with the provisions for determining density in Section E.1." <br /> 28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Chair Carey suggested reviewing each bulleted option on page 12 and 13. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 a Revised Section III-D-1-C: There was consensus on this recommendation. <br /> 33 • Revised Section IV-D-1-G: There was consensus on this recommendation to refer back to the Zoning <br /> 34 Ordinance in this item. <br /> 35 a Revised Section IV-D-10-G: There was consensus on this recommendation to eliminate subsection G.3 <br /> 36 a Revised Section III-D-1-d: There was consensus on this recommendation <br /> 37 • Revised Section IV-D-10-B: There was consensus on this recommendation. <br /> 38 Commissioner Willhoit voiced his concern that the Minor Subdivision process includes a <br /> 39 requirement that there not be dedicated roads. This encourages having each lot empty onto the main road <br /> 40 so that the road does not have to be dedicated. He asked that the procedure be reversed so that the Minor <br /> 41 Subdivision is exempted if they have only one entry point to a major road. Those that have multiple entries to <br /> 42 the major road would then require review. He referred this to the staff for review and recommendation to be <br /> 43 returned to the Board of Commissioners. <br /> 44 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to ask <br /> 45 County staff to review potential issues associated with changing the requirements for access to <br /> 46 major roads to read "Minor Subdivisions are exempt if they have only one entry point on the major <br /> 47 road. Those that have multiple entries to the major road would require review." <br /> 48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 49 • Revised Section IV-D-10-D-5: There was consensus on this recommendation <br /> 50 • Revised Section IV-D-10-C.3: There was consensus on this recommendation <br /> 51 • Revised Section IV-0-10: There was consensus on this recommendation <br />