Agenda - 02-16-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

meet more of what he would expect of a cluster 132 subdivision. Pilkey noted that she felt this was a very creative plan. She did express concerns with the Homeowners Association noting the expense would be a burden for low and moderate income homeowners. She also expressed concerned with the two intermittent streams. Crudup responded that they were listed as intermittent on the USGS maps available to Staff . Eddleman asked Staff ' s position on OWASA ' s recommendations. Crudup responded that the subdivision meets Orange County Ordinance requirements. The lots are one acre+ and the amount of land disturbance is minimal . Jacobs asked Jeff Levine, architect for Habitat for Humanity, the cost per homeowner for maintenance of the open space. Mr. Levine responded the Habitat will be having a meeting within the next two weeks and they will be suggesting that $10. 00 per homeowner per month be placed in an escrow account. Since the Habitat owns most of the area, it will be the largest shareholder in the Homeowners Association. Mr. Levine also noted that a legal document regarding the wells is to be provided per request of the Habitat' s attorney. Mary Anne Black, Recreation and Parks Director, stated that her Staff and Advisory Board had discussed in great length the proposed dedica- tion of recreation/open space. She stated that the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board recom- mends that the space on the east side of Jo Mac Road be retained in private ownership by Habitat of Humanity or a Homeowners Association. She noted that by saying that the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board wanted the recreation/open space be retained in private ownership, they were not also saying that they expected or wanted payment- in- lieu to "kick in". Ms. Black continued that the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board went on record supporting the County ' s stance to encourage low and moderate income housing in this County and they did not feel that payment- in- lieu should be applied in this instance since they also did not feel that the size, location, type or cost of development would fit into the Master Recreation Plan. Kramer commented on the history of the land involved in this subdivision . MOTION: Eddleman moved approval with Staff conditions. Seconded by Pilkey.