Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
63 <br /> 1, R-2 , R-3 , and R-4 zoning districts there are no recreational space <br /> requirements. There are recreational space ratios for planned <br /> development. Recreational space ratios have also been added for non <br /> residential uses in residential areas. These were based on the ratios <br /> that already exist in the zoning ordinance. <br /> Marvin Collins summarized the proposed changes that would <br /> provide for recreation space and school sites in new <br /> subdivisions and the established guidelines for the creation <br /> of homeowners' associations. <br /> The determination to accept payment-in-lieu would depend <br /> upon the existing recreation area in the area in which the <br /> subdivision is to be built. If there are already activities <br /> within an area, then the payment in lieu may be advisable. <br /> However, if the subdivision was of substantial size, then <br /> recreational improvements may be required within that <br /> development. If the development was not of substantial <br /> size, then the option of payment-in-lieu would be available. <br /> COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING <br /> BOARD <br /> Commissioner Walker indicated he understood these amendments <br /> would only apply to multifamily dwellings. Collins responded the <br /> proposed amendments would be applicable to all subdivisions. <br /> Steve Kizer noted that basically the amendment is to levy a <br /> recreational tax as a way to equally distribute between all new <br /> dwellings and indicated there must be an easier formula to apply. He <br /> asked if it had been considered for the tax office to determine the <br /> value and set the rate accordingly. <br /> Marvin Collins indicated this a possibility. <br /> Commissioner Marshall asked for clarification on when the Board <br /> would be requested to make the decision on whether it would be payment <br /> in lieu or dedication or if the developer would always have that <br /> choice. Marvin Collins indicated the decision would be made by the <br /> Board of Commissioners. <br /> Planning Board member Carl Walters asked about the relationship <br /> to property values and Collins indicated if there is any at all it <br /> would be based on location. A person in Chapel Hill or Carrboro may <br /> be making a larger payment in lieu than someone in a rural area. <br /> Walters feels that mobile homes should be placed under the same <br /> regulations. <br /> Commissioner Marshall noted that the developer should be able to <br /> decide on the payment in lieu or dedication choice. <br /> Director of Recreation and Parks Mary Anne Black asked for <br /> additional time for the Recreation and Parks Council to consider these <br /> proposed amendments and have an opportunity for further comments. <br /> 7 . FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS <br /> a. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - FLOOR ELEVATIONS <br /> b. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - NON-RESIDENTIAL <br /> STRUCTURE CERTIFICATION <br /> C. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - ANCHORING AND ELEVATION <br /> REQUIREMENTS (A complete narrative of the proposed <br /> amendments is on file in the permanent agenda file in the <br /> Clerk's office) . <br /> Planner Susan Smith noted these changes are in response to <br /> changes in federal criteria from the Federal Emergency <br /> Management Agency. Certain provisions are not included in <br />