Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
23 <br />5. The required distances to open space put forth in Section C.4 `Access to Open Space' have <br />been made more flexible. The previous language required that a certain number of lots <br />would have to be 300 feet or 600 feet from an accessible point of open space. The new <br />language requires those lots to be `approximately' those distances from open space, <br />reflecting that the basis of those distances would be according to the overall merit of the open <br />space proposal. <br />6. Anew paragraph was added at the beginning of Section C.2, `Planning for Open Space' <br />stressing the need for open space to be planned and to become a comprehensive inclusion <br />into the subdivision design. The language is designed to allow a stronger basis for the case- <br />by-case analysis of open space arrangement in Flexible Subdivision plans by the Planning <br />Board and Board of County Commissioners. <br />PROCESS <br />Public Hearing May 27, 2003 <br />Planning Board Recommendation August 6, 2003 <br />BOCC to make decision no sooner than August 19, 2003 <br />FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no public fiscal impacts associated with this decision. <br />David Lentzner stated the changes were basically.two types. One change was to improve the <br />clarity of the language. There are a few areas, where the language was confusing and was <br />changed. The other type of change was to make it less of a strict regulatory approach. The <br />language was changed to give the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners more <br />ability to tailor their requirements for open space to each development. The main changes were: <br />1) To change "Pedestrian Access Paths" to "Pedestrian Access Ways" to take away the <br />confusion about whether or not a path had to be constructed. The need for a path would be <br />applied on a case-by-case basis. <br />2) An additional functional open space goal - "The Maintenance of Wildlife Corridors and <br />Habitats". <br />3) Generally, the language was changed to improve readability and brevity. <br />4) The Section "Access to Open Space" now more clearly limits general public encroachment <br />into Flexible Subdivision Open Space. <br />5) In that same Section, required distances for access to open space have been made more <br />flexible. <br />6) Anew paragraph was added in Section C.2 stressing the need for open space to be planned. <br />Craufurd Goodwin expressed concern that the assumption was that everyone would like access <br />to Open Spaces and that somehow the public needs to be protected by forcing the developer to <br />guarantee access through proximity or direct accessibility. Why do you need to have this <br />included? Why not allow the developer simply construct this. <br />Chair Gooding-Ray asked if the open space is not available to the public, is it available to the <br />members of the subdivision even if they would cross someone else's lot. <br />11 <br />