Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Information Item <br /> Memorandum <br /> Date: August 17, 2015 <br /> To: Board of County Commissioners <br /> Bonnie B. Hammersley, County Manager <br /> From: Craig Benedict, Planning Director <br /> Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator <br /> Re: BOCC Follow Up List Item Regarding Internal Pedestrian Systems <br /> As part of the discussion at the April 7, 2015 Board of County Commissioners meeting <br /> regarding the Efland zoning overlay districts, a commissioner requested information on steps <br /> the County can take to provide internal pedestrian circulation or reasons why providing it <br /> cannot occur. <br /> The original proposal for the Efland overlay districts was written to require that projects of a <br /> certain size provide privately-owned and maintained internal pedestrian systems. As a result <br /> of resident comments at the February 2014 quarterly public hearing, the Board of County <br /> Commissioners directed staff to work with the community and return with a proposal the <br /> community supported. Staff met with residents more than 10 times and one of the results of <br /> the meetings was that language pertaining to the overlay districts was "softened" to be less <br /> regulatory. In the case of internal pedestrian systems, the words "shall be required" were <br /> changed to "may be required" and the site plan review process will determine if a proposed <br /> project will be required to provide a private internal pedestrian system. <br /> The County may choose to require that development projects provide a wide variety of <br /> amenities, including internal pedestrian systems, by including such requirements in its <br /> development regulations (e.g., the Unified Development Ordinance [UDO]). One of the <br /> considerations local governments take into account when deciding on regulations is the <br /> balance of requiring too little, which can potentially result in subpar development projects, and <br /> requiring so much that residents and developers voice concerns about development being too <br /> onerous. Therefore, the County's regulations often reflect a balance of interests within a <br /> legally sufficient framework. <br /> If the Board would like to consider changes to the UDO, Board members could petition to have <br /> staff work on specified changes to be brought forward at a future quarterly public hearing. <br />