Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
25 <br /> buffer. She also had concern with the potential <br /> for a huge -primary development adjacent to a <br /> residential area with only a 100-foot buffer. <br /> While she could understand the reasoning for <br /> primary, she felt the best long range plan for <br /> the area would be for a secondary designation. <br /> Barrows referred to the EDD Design Manual and <br /> requirements for impervious surface asking if <br /> the site volume ratio would determine the amount <br /> of development and open space. Willis responded <br /> that there is not a separate impervious surface <br /> requirement because the area is not in a <br /> protected watershed. The site volume ratio is <br /> the deciding factor just as it is in the other <br /> districts. <br /> Hoecke noted that the strongest argument in favor <br /> of the Staff recommendation is the fact that <br /> piece-meal development generally tends to lead to <br /> much more intensive land use than would occur on <br /> a single tract. There could also be more control <br /> and guidance on a single tract. <br /> Katz felt that the only thing driving the <br /> addition of this property to the EDD is that the <br /> same owner has land already in the EDD. He could <br /> not understand the rush to increase the size of <br /> the EDD when the need is not there yet. With <br /> those thoughts, he would like for the property to <br /> remain as it is currently. <br /> Rosemond noted that the use issue is what is at <br /> stake, not the owner. Hoecke responded that with <br /> the two separate pieces, it reduces the <br /> developers perception of flexibility. Rosemond <br /> continued that the density of use was the <br /> concern. Hoecke noted that he felt it would make <br /> it easier for the developer to produce a plan <br /> that would be more acceptable for the area. One <br /> comprehensive plan with a more balanced design. <br /> Using the map, Jobsis asked why a secondary <br /> development area had not been recommended next to <br /> Cornwallis Hills and why there was a larger <br /> buffer between the existing Primary area and <br /> Cornwallis Hills on the east side of Cates Creek. <br /> Willis responded that there is a larger buffer <br /> becasue of the location of Cates Creek. Barrows <br /> agreed that she would like to see a larger <br /> buffer adjacent to the future expansion of <br /> Cornwallis Hills west of Cates Creek. Jobsis <br /> continued that if it were to be primary a larger <br /> buffer should be required. <br />