Agenda - 02-16-1993 - VII-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 MEMORANDUM To: Orange Co ty Boar f mmissio ers From: Marvin Co line, anning Director Date: February 10, 1993 Subject: Rural Character Study Recommendations Copies: Orange County Planning Board Rural Character Study Committee John Link, County Manager Geofrey Gledhill, County Attorney David Stencil, Planner II, Comprehensive Planning On January 25, 1993, the Planning Board recommended adoption of the strategies proposed by the Rural Character Study Committee with the following revisions: 1. Retain 40,000 sq.ft. [0.92 acres] as the minimum required lot size; 2. Add a sentence noting that the strategies are designed to complement the "Basic Concepts" section of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Clarify language concerning the definition of open space on pages 23-24 of the Conceptual Guidelines. Revisions #2 and #3 do not affect the development options or represent any change in the intent of the strategies. Revision #1 does, however, have implications for developments in rural areas that differ from those proposed by the Committee. On the following pages, examples are provided which illustrate the similarities and differences between the Rural Character Study Committee's strategies and the Planning Board's recommendation. To evaluate the impact of retaining the 40,000 sq.ft. lot size requirement, two versions of the Planning Board's recommendation [#1A and #18] are presented as applied to a 50-acre tract. In addition to the Planning Board versions, a second series of options is presented which are variations of Randall Arendt's "density-neutral" option. The first Arendt , option [#2A] combines the density-neutral approach with an increase in the minimum lot size requirement to 80,000 sq.ft. Such an option has been advocated by at least one member of the Rural Character Study Committee. The second [#2B] and third [#2C] options are based on the Grafton, Massachusetts ordinance [prepared by Mr. Arendt] and seeks to address the following issues: 1. Concern over retaining the 40,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size standard; 2. Definitions of quality open space; and 3. Use of an Arendt density-neutral approach. These versions were not specifically recommended by the Planning Board or Mr. Arendt but were developed by the Planning Staff to show the implications of various options. When the Planning Board prepared a recommendation on the strategies, neither it nor the staff was fully aware of the impact of retaining the 40,000 sq.ft. lot size standard on the Rural Character Study Committee's sliding scale. It would seem advisable to refer the proposed strategies as well as the options presented on the following pages back to the Planning Board for further consideration.