Agenda - 12-12-2006-5l - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT MT~TLTTES 10 1 Commissioner Gordon encouraged the Planning Board to incorporate landowner 2' comments. 3 Tom Eakes asked to make a comment. He lives on Lake Orange. He said that the 4 people on Lake Orange, as well as the people on the other lakes and streams around town, S would like to know how staff will police this and what kind of actions.will be taken. 6 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 9 Chair Jacobs pointed out that there have been two meetings of the Eno River 10 Confluence -and there was an effort to bring together people that had interest in the Upper 11 Eno, and there was, never representation from Lake Orange residents. There will be another 12 one in April. He encouraged the residents to leave information with the Clerk so that they can 13 be invited. 14 15 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments: Planning Board and staff initiated 16 amendments to Section IV-B, Conservation-Cluster Option, to modify the perimeter buffer 17 standards to distinguish and develop comparable dimensions between urban versus rural 18 design subdivisions. 19 20 Planning Supervisor Robert Davis introduced this item. Orange County has three flexible 21 development options -Estate Lot, Conservation Cluster, and Village. This amendment will only 22 affect the conservation cluster option and only the buffer standard and the types of ownership of 23 the buffers. There were modifications in 1999 that placed a 100-foot perimeter building setback 24 buffer on this development option. The original intent of the 100-foot setback was to lessen the 25 impact of higher density clusters of housing on the surrounding, lower density dwellings. The 26 setback has presented challenges in smaller acreage subdivision and also irregularly shaped 27 tracts. There was a situation in Ashwick where an accessory structure could not be built because 28 of the setback. The proposal is to go from the 100-foot setback to a 60-foot setback owned by the 29 homeowner's association. The 100-foot setback requirement will remain in rural areas along 30 roadways. The staff would like to get this back to the Planning Board to set up an Ordinance 31 Review Committee to review this more thoroughly. 32 Chair Jacobs said that his initial impression is.that in the urbanizing areas, it seems to 33 make more sense: He suggested putting the map in the abstract and giving the County 34 Commissioners more information on the buffer requirements. 3S Chair Jacobs questioned the faith that the Homeowner's Association will solve a problem. 36 He said that part of this is based on the assumption that if the Homeowner's Association 37 controlled the buffer, that it would be less likely to be disturbed. Based on his experience, it is just 38 as likely to be the other way around. 39 Robert Davis said that his experience is that people do less encroachment from a 40 structural standpoint when the homeowner's association owns it. 41 Jay Bryan said that he does not recall anything else asking for anything other than just 42 looking at how to prevent the immediate issue in Ashwick. He does not remember it being 43 expanded to a larger policy issue. 44 Robert Davis said that he recalls that the motion was to consider ways for this not to 45 happen again. 46 47 Public Comment 48 Steve Yuhasz said that he is not opposed to these buffers, but he thinks that this is 49 indicative of the need to review the entire flexible development process. He said that the proposal SO of 60 feet would not qualify for any credit as open space to meet the requirements. He thinks that S 1 the proposal can work, but it needs to be part of a larger evaluation of the buffer requirements.