Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-01-2003-9b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2003
>
Agenda - 10-01-2003
>
Agenda - 10-01-2003-9b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 2:54:21 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:34:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/1/2003
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20031001
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2003
ORD-2003-133 Amendments to Open Space Standards for Flexible Development Subdivisions
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2000-2009\2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
25 <br />Ted Triebel asked the definition of "functional". There are 8 goals and categories so if it would <br />further one of those goals because the others are not possible, then is it functional open space? <br />Craig Benedict answered yes. If you take 1 and ignore 7 others, that is not furthering as many as <br />possible. <br />Craufurd Goodwin noted that on the second paragraph page 075, Section C.2, is much more <br />complicated that dedication to the County. This easement requires due diligence on the recipient <br />and that is fairly expensive. Is the State willing to accept loss of conservation easements from <br />these developments and be prepared to diligently fulfill the obligations to check those regularly. <br />Craig Benedict agreed that it is a complicated process. We have sparingly presented to the <br />property owners the various conservancies, asking if they are interested. This item is not <br />available to some of the properties unless it meets lofty conservation goals of third parties. We <br />could put additional information in that this is an option, but it is an involved option. <br />Craufurd Goodwin said that it sounded like the County is willing to accept any conservation <br />easement that it is given. <br />Jay Bryan said that it is the County's option to accept it. <br />Chair Gooding-Ray suggested there be a statement that the County may reject this option. <br />Craufurd Goodwin agreed. <br />Craig Benedict suggested putting a note under the heading that there is a process that may or <br />may not accept dedications in a certain manner. <br />Craufurd Goodwin asked for the definition of an estate lot. <br />Craig Benedict defined an estate lot as a 4 acre lot or larger. <br />Craufurd Goodwin asked why conservation easements have to be dedicated prior to application. <br />Jay Bryan replied that it says, "where they have been dedicated". <br />Craig Benedict said this deals with subdivisions that may make arrangements and try to get a <br />credit. <br />Craufiud Goodwin asked if a developer comes in to discuss options, would one possibility be - a <br />conservation easement that is not permitted if this remains. <br />Craig Benedict responded that if it is included in the application, that is in the ownership of the <br />land being subdivided, you could consider it. <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.