Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-20-2014 - 6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2014
>
Agenda - 05-20-2014 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 05-20-2014 - 6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2015 2:13:19 PM
Creation date
5/16/2014 12:35:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/20/2014
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6a
Document Relationships
Minutes 05-20-2014
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I Michael Harvey said there are several ways to get this done. He said one way is to <br />2 establish an HOA, and another way is to work with developers to have common areas donated <br />3 and dedicated to local conservancy groups. <br />4 Commissioner Dorosin questioned how density would be measured if, for example, he <br />5 owned a 5 acre stand -alone lot and he wanted to sub - divide it and sell part of it. <br />6 Michael Harvey said it would depend on when the lot was created. He said a <br />7 subdivision would not be possible if the lot was created in 2000, as the density threshold has <br />8 been reached for the area in question. <br />9 <br />10 Mayor Kleinschmidt arrived at 7:16 PM <br />11 <br />12 Commissioner Dorosin questioned whether subdivided lots from a parcel created earlier <br />13 would still be grandfathered. <br />14 Michael Harvey said it would be a lot created under provisions referenced in the plan, as <br />15 well as in County zoning regulations. He said there is a density bonus that the plan recognizes. <br />16 He said this allows for up to 5 lots at a 2 acre density; but once this is exhausted, every dwelling <br />17 would have to meet the one dwelling unit per 5 acre density. <br />18 Alderman Slade said this looks like a more attractive alternative for developers, and it <br />19 may allow them to pursue the clustered subdivision as a way to save money. He questioned <br />20 whether there might be ways to incentivize developers to make any existing nature corridors or <br />21 County corridors publicly accessible space in exchange for the opportunity to do a cluster <br />22 subdivision. <br />23 Michael Harvey said the current County standards do not incentivize the cluster <br />24 subdivision process. He said this plan merely provides the developer an opportunity to reduce <br />25 cost and preserve open space. He said the only incentive in their regulations is to potentially <br />26 allow for additional density, subject to the provision of lots for affordable housing. He said the <br />27 County has had developers that have dedicated open space and allowed for public access <br />28 corridors consistent with the Greenway Master Plan, which is monitored by the Department of <br />29 Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation ( DEAPR). He said DEAPR is involved in the <br />30 review process and makes recommendations on the reservation of such areas. <br />31 Commissioner Price asked if staff can provide the statistics for which developers have <br />32 used conventional plans versus clustering or conservation over the years. <br />33 Michael Harvey said he can do this, but he would remind the Board that there are 4 <br />34 types of major sub - division regulations in the County, most of which are conservation /clustering <br />35 style subdivisions. He said the County has only had 2 major subdivisions in the past 3 years. <br />36 Commissioner Price said there have been some in the past and she would like to have <br />37 some idea of how this has gone. She said there were efforts in the 1990's to do this type of <br />38 conservation, and a lot of the developers were choosing the conventional plan. <br />39 Michael Harvey said he can provide this information. He said there is nothing in this <br />40 plan other that it encourages and allows clustered subdivisions. He said it is the County's <br />41 subdivision regulations that spell out the subdivision processes. <br />42 Council Member Harrison said it was with the Dunhill subdivision off Mount Sinai Road <br />43 that he first learned about the lack of cluster. He asked if this neighborhood had any other <br />44 option besides conventional that would have given them more buffer against the Johnston Mill <br />45 Preserve. <br />46 Michael Harvey said the developer could have done a cluster sub - division, but this would <br />47 have limited them to 2 acre lot sizes; therefore the conventional option was chosen. He said <br />48 this amendment would have given the developer the option to cluster down to one acre with 33 <br />49 percent open space. <br />50 Council Member Harrison questioned whether this option would have reduced the <br />51 number of lots. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.