Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
118 <br /> should be a statement that the primary and <br /> secondary conservation areas have value to the <br /> people of Orange County. He felt there was some <br /> tradeoff that must be recognized. He expressed <br /> support for a re-evaluation and felt that 3 to 5 <br /> years was a reasonable time for that <br /> re-evaluation. He suggested also, that after a <br /> certain number of plans occurs, such as 25, if <br /> that was less than 3 years, would be the time to <br /> re-evaluate. Waddell continued that it should be <br /> optional. He noted he had heard that statement <br /> many, many times from citizens since discussions <br /> on open space began. <br /> By consensus, the Board approved sending all of <br /> these comments to the Board of Commissioners. <br /> Bob Hall stated that he had attended many of the <br /> meetings regarding rural character. He asked for <br /> clarification of buildable land area and its <br /> correlation to primary and secondary. <br /> Waddell responded that the Board had previously <br /> discussed total land area. Other Board members <br /> indicated they felt it was percentage of <br /> buildable area and this was added to those <br /> comments from Brown, Howie and Katz. Jobsis, <br /> Walters, Barrows, Allison and Waddell asked that <br /> their comments include total land area. <br /> Issue #2: Disincentives Versus Incentives <br /> Collins cited an example presented by Arendt <br /> regarding disincentives. On a hundred acre tract, <br /> allow 70% for a conventional subdivision and if <br /> using an open space plan, allow use of all 100 <br /> lots (what the land will give you) . This is a <br /> very real disincentive. He reminded the Board <br /> that this will be perceived by the public as down <br /> zoning. Density is being taken away without going <br /> through the rezoning process. <br /> Collins continued with another form of <br /> disincentive which is more economic, financial. <br /> The current regulations regarding roads assumes <br /> that all roads are to be public. However, if a <br /> subdivision meets the criteria being proposed for <br /> flexible development, most of the criteria <br /> concern rural character strategies and design <br /> standards, then the subdivision could qualify for <br /> private roads. He noted that flexible development <br /> does not address the issue of private roads <br /> standards. Thus, a disincentive could be, if the <br /> development is to be a conventional subdivision, <br />