Agenda - 05-20-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I 1 Michael Harvey said this is correct, but it would have been 2 acre minimum lot sizes. 2 Council Member Harrison said it could have increased the amount of open space 3 against neighboring properties. 4 Michael Harvey said this is correct, but the County cannot require that the developer go 5 through this process, because it was a special use permit. 6 Council Member Ward asked if this proposal is going to create any situations where 7 people will lose development opportunities. 8 Michael Harvey said he does not think so, because County planning staff already 9 interprets a de -facto one dwelling unit for every 2 acre density in the rural residential area. He 10 said this will simply allow people to reduce the lot size, cluster, get more open space, and 11 reduce the cost for development. He said the County gets the benefit of more open space. 12 Council Member Ward asked if there are there boilerplate restrictions related to the open 13 space that is created within these subdivisions. 14 Michael Harvey said yes. He said the Orange County subdivision regulations spell out 15 uses allowed within open space, and this is primarily for local residents, access and some 16 recreational activities. 17 Council Member Ward asked if the space can be timbered. 18 Michael Harvey said no. 19 Council Member Ward asked about the nature of the enforcement. 20 Michael Harvey said he tries his best. 21 Council Member Ward noted that one of the proposals is to overlay what already is by 22 state law agricultural uses throughout the County. 23 Michael Harvey said staff is proposing the combination of existing agricultural land use 24 area with the rural residential category, adding language that stipulates agricultural activities are 25 permitted consistent with state law. 26 Council Member Ward asked if this is going to do anything in the watershed that would 27 be counterproductive to the interest in keeping it healthy. 28 Michael Harvey said not in his professional opinion, because state law says the County 29 cannot stop farms from developing in that area anyway. 30 Council Member Ward asked if there are other ways to deal with agricultural activities to 31 make sure these activities and farming practices are done as wisely as possible. 32 Michael Harvey said even though farms are exempt from the majority of zoning 33 regulations, they are still required to comply with development regulations, specifically erosion 34 control and storm water management. He said the County planning department does enforce 35 impervious surface limits on farms and does work in concert with the Health Department to 36 insure adequate septic. He said there are mechanisms in place to address some potential 37 concerns, but the tools at the County's disposal are limited because of state law. 38 Commissioner McKee said there are regulations associated with the Jordan Lake rules 39 that define record keeping, as well as best farming practices. 40 Commissioner Gordon asked if there is any other way to handle this concern about 41 farming not being allowed. She said it seems that farming cannot be restrained, and she thinks 42 there are already farms in this watershed and other areas of the rural buffer. She questioned 43 whether there is any other way to phrase this that would bring the definition up to date instead of 44 combining these two uses. She said this makes it sound much like the Agricultural Residential 45 land use category, which is much different. She asked if there is a way to add a statement 46 about compliance with state statutes. 47 Michael Harvey said the original proposal was to delete agricultural areas as a land use 48 category altogether, and add the language being proposed on page 8 of the abstract. He said it 49 was determined that the language of the agriculture areas land use category should be 50 maintained. He said since there are no properties placed in the category to begin with it 51 seemed reasonable to combine the two and add the language. He said the problem is that