Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
10 <br /> PRESENTATION BY STAFF <br /> Director of Planning Marvin Collins referred to agenda items So and <br /> 6a and 6b. Article $.1. 1 is the schedule for residential development anal <br /> refers to the required minimum recreation space ratio. The proposed <br /> amendment to the Subdivision regulations would require the dedication <br /> (or provision) of recreation facilities or a payment in lieu. The <br /> proposed amendment contains a formula for the computation of requ.i}_ed <br /> recreation and/or open space area. The reason for the proposed amendment <br /> to the Zoning Ordinance text is that in the AR, R-1, R-2, R-3,, anel' R-4 <br /> zoning districts there are no recreational space requirements. There are <br /> recreational space ratios for planned development. Recreational space <br /> ratios have also been added for non-residential uses in residential <br /> areas. These were based on the that already exist in the zoning <br /> ordinance. <br /> Marvin Collins summarized the proposed changes that would <br /> provide for recreation space and school sites in new subdivisions, and <br /> establish guidelines for the creation of homeowners' associations. <br /> The determination to accept payment-in-lieu would depend upon <br /> . the existing recreation area in the area in which the subdivision is <br /> be built. If there are already activities within an area, then t _ <br /> payment in lieu may be advisable. However, if the subdivision was of <br /> substantial size, then recreational improvements may be required within <br /> that development. If the development was not of substantial size, then <br /> the cation of payment-in-lieu would be available. <br /> COM. =' $ OR OU STIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOAR <br /> C.c.am=z.sior r Walker indicated he understood these amendments we d <br /> only apply to multifamily dwellings. <br /> Steve Kizer noted that basically the amendment is to levy a <br /> recreational tax as a way to equally distribute between all new <br /> dwellings and indicated there must be an easier formula to apply. He <br /> eased if it had been considered for the tax office to determine the <br /> value and set the rate accordingly. <br /> Marvin Collins indicated this as a possibility. <br /> Commissioner Marshall asked for clarification on when the Board <br /> would be requested to make the decision on whether it would he payment <br /> in lieu or dedication or if the developer would always have that choice. <br /> Marvin Collins indicated the decision would be made by the Board of <br /> Commissioners. <br /> Planning Board member Carl Walters asked about the relationship in <br /> property values and Collins indicated if there are any at all it woui.d <br /> be based on location. A person in Chapel Hill or Carrbcro may he maki.Ig <br /> a larger payment in lieu than someone in a rural area. Walters feels <br /> that mobile homes should be placed under the same regulations. <br /> Commissioner Marshall noted that the :eveloper should be able to <br /> decide on the payment in lieu or dedication choice. <br /> Director of Recreation and Parks Mary Anne Black ask for additional <br /> time for the Recreation and Parks Council to consider these proposed <br /> amendments and have an opportunity for further comments. <br /> 7. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDENTS <br /> a. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - FLOOR ELEVATIONS <br /> b. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD RE DUCTION - NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE <br /> CERTIFICATION <br /> c. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - ANCHORING AND ELE7A TCN <br /> REQUIREMENTS (A complete narrative of the proposed amendr cnrs is on file <br /> in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . <br />