Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
22 <br />VOTE: All ayes. <br />9. ii. Amendment in open space Standards for Flexible Subdivision Developments <br />Presenter: David Lentzer <br />PURPOSE: To consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on a <br />proposed amendment to the open space Standards in Subdivisions following the Flexible <br />Development option. <br />BACKGROUND: Flexible Development, Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations, was <br />adopted on July 1, 1996. Section C of the code requires that Flexible Subdivisions set aside at <br />least 33% of the total land area as protected open space. The current open space standards apply <br />required compositional elements for Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas, and some <br />guidelines for open space shape design. <br />The proposed amendment is designed to improve the layout of open space under these <br />regulations by making it more accessible to the public (i.e. subdivision property owners or, in <br />some cases, the general public) for view or use. This was in response to concerns that new <br />subdivisions were not maintaining the county's rural character because they were creating lazge <br />blocks of more urban-style residential lots unbroken by natural areas and lacking open space <br />connectivity. <br />The initial amendment was brought forth at the May 27, 2003 Public Hearing and comments <br />were received from the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board. The following <br />changes have been made in the ordinance amendment text in response to those comments: <br />1. The classification of `Pedestrian Access Paths' in Section C.3.c `Secondary Conservation <br />Areas' has been changed in name to `Pedestrian Access Ways'. It has been explicitly stated <br />in the text that this designation does not require the construction of an improved path, but <br />must only be: a) 50 feet wide b) in common ownership c) undeveloped except for <br />recreational amenities and d) reasonably traversable by foot. The determination of when <br />pedestrian improvements should be required in an access way is left to acase-by-case <br />analysis of the overall open space goals of the proposed subdivision and recommended by the <br />Planning Boazd. <br />2. An additional functional open space goal, `The Maintenance of Wildlife Corridors and <br />Habitat', has been added in Section C.2 `Planning for Open Space'. <br />3. The ordinance language has been edited throughout the amendment for improved readability <br />and brevity. <br />4. The language was changed in Section C.4 `Access to Open Space' to more clearly allow the <br />ability to limit general public encroachment into Flexible Subdivision open space. The <br />amendment still suggests that open space will `ideally' be available for the use of subdivision <br />residents and/or the general public. It is now stated that this access may not be reasonable in <br />all cases. As with the more flexible determination of access way improvements, public <br />access into open space is now considered acase-by-case decision based on the overall goals <br />of the subdivision's open space plan. <br />10 <br />