Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-01-1995 - X-B
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1995
>
Agenda - 11-01-95
>
Agenda - 11-01-1995 - X-B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/8/2015 4:22:57 PM
Creation date
1/8/2015 4:21:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/1/1995
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
X-B
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19951101
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
132
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
52 <br /> • To create compact neighborhoods accessible to open space amenities and with a strong identity. <br /> Comment. ?his purpose of this section is to convey to landowner and developer alike what aspects of the <br /> county's rural character are to be addressed through Flexible Development design. The broad <br /> statement of purpose and speck objectives are based on the goals and action strategies outlined <br /> in the preceding section. <br /> Section IV-B-10-B. APPLICABILITY <br /> Flexible Development is permitted in all residential zoning districts except the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district, <br /> but only upon approval of a Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the Planning Department or a Major Subdivision <br /> Preliminary Plat by the Board of County Commissioners. All Flexible Development subdivision plats shall comply <br /> with the requirements and standards specified herein and in all respects with other applicable codes and ordinances <br /> to the extent that they are not in conflict with these provisions. <br /> Comment. A major aspect of this Flexible Development proposal is that existing zoning district designations <br /> would remain unchanged. In other words,minimum lot size requirements would not be increased. <br /> The only instance where minimum lot sizes may be recommended for change is in Protected <br /> Watersheds where a technical study has been completed and such increases are recommended for <br /> water quality protection purposes. Only one such study is underway, Cane Creek Watershed, and <br /> no others are contemplated at this time. <br /> This approach is modeled on the Grafton, Massachusetts Flexible Development Bylaws which <br /> applies a single set of development standards in most zoning districts. The same approach is <br /> currently used in the application of Orange County's Cluster Development standards. The wording <br /> is such that Flexible Development standards will not be used in the Rural Buffer zoning district <br /> until an amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement has been approved <br /> through which to implement the approach. <br /> Section IV-B-10-C. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS <br /> Where a developer elects to seek approval of a Flexible Development as specified herein,at least thirty-three percent <br /> (33%)of the total land area in the Flexible Development must be set aside as protected open space. Such open space <br /> shall meet these standards unless the developer chooses to seek approval of a conventional subdivision. <br /> Comment. During the debate/discussion of the amount of open space to be preserved, the possibilities ranged <br /> from a citizen-recommended low of 10 percent to a high of 75 percent in the Montgomery County, <br /> Pennsylvania Land Preservation District. While the Rural Character Study Committee <br /> recommended a sliding scale of density bonuses and open space requirements, many reference <br /> materials and ordinances recommended or required that at least a certain percentage of the project <br /> area be set aside in open space. <br /> The requirement of setting aside one-third of the project area as open space represents a mid- <br /> range approach. It is slightly higher than one standard considered by the University Station <br /> Planning Group (30%) and is less than the 40 to 50 percent range cited in many reference <br /> materials. <br /> The requirement is considered feasible, based on a review of six Orange County subdivisions <br /> which provided or are to provide open space. Open space in these subdivisions ranged from 24 <br /> to 47percent of the total project area, with a median of 34 percent. The 'one-third'standard is <br /> also considered feasible,given the alternatives availableforsatisfying the open space requirement. <br /> The wording at the beginning of this section has been included to clarify that unless a developer <br /> chooses to seek approval�fa Flexible Development, he/she need not comply with the open space <br /> requirements. <br /> Flexible Development 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.