|
11
<br /> DRAFT
<br /> 273 So why are we here? Two years ago, Sally Green, Commissioner Green, petitioned the BOCC,
<br /> 274 the commissioners and the manager for staff to initiate amendments to the unified development
<br /> 275 ordinance to better support the realization of conservation—quote—conservation subdivisions, in
<br /> 276 Orange County. Randall Arendt, in the interim, came and presented to the commissioners as part
<br /> 277 of the 2050 land use plan about the difference between flexible developments and conservation
<br /> 278 subdivisions, and Commissioner Green specifically referenced Loudon County,Virginia and their
<br /> 279 standards there to address. And I think that the question for Lauren that was just asked about
<br /> 280 primary open space being the most-environmentally sensitive areas as opposed to being the
<br /> 281 areas that are not developable is kind of a kernel of, of what Randall Arendt shared with the board
<br /> 282 about the difference between a conservation subdivision and a flexible development subdivision.
<br /> 283 Flexible developments protect those primary open spaces that we are,that we currently designate
<br /> 284 as the priority. A conservation subdivision takes them off the board pretty much entirely and says
<br /> 285 this is not developable area and you need to protect more on top of that. In addition, and what 1
<br /> 286 will share and I have a slide that says this clearly, is,we're not addressing that this evening
<br /> 287 because,with regard to what the land use plan has brought up with regard to whether or not the
<br /> 288 county would like to seek conservation subdivisions, most of which are dependent upon
<br /> 289 decentralized wastewater systems, community systems and very-small, much-smaller lot sizes
<br /> 290 than the county's accustomed to in order to have that trade-off and make a project appealing to
<br /> 291 the development community and actually practical to even do the work to amend the ordinance to
<br /> 292 bring it to Orange County. If we're going to bother to do that,we have to have a very-hard
<br /> 293 conversation about the trade-offs of lot sizes, environmental protection and serving the county's
<br /> 294 interests in that regard and we haven't been able to have that complete conversation at this time.
<br /> 295 We certainly are in the middle of it I would say, but we don't have resolution on what direction the
<br /> 296 county's going to go with regard to conservation subdivisions. Additionally,we had two flexible
<br /> 297 major subdivisions in 2024, the Stonewall subdivision and the Williams-Glenn subdivision, both
<br /> 298 just under 20 lots. They were presented to both the planning board and then the commissioners
<br /> 299 later that year for approval, and there was some questions about what leverage, or leeway,the
<br /> 300 board had to offer, negotiate,with the applicant, apply conditions,ask for revisions to the plan and
<br /> 301 coming to the realization that there was no leverage to do so,that there is no high ground that the
<br /> 302 county has with regard to these by-right subdivisions. There was a question, especially from the
<br /> 303 commissioners, of why are these even before us. We're now placing—the Rigsbee subdivision,
<br /> 304 for example,will go on the consent agenda for the commissioners at their direction. They won't be
<br /> 305 discussing it, because they don't have the discretionary authority like they do on a rezoning to
<br /> 306 negotiate for conditions on a case. And that also brings concerns to staff, because we get
<br /> 307 comments from the public about how are we processing these, how do we make sure that we
<br /> 308 enforce these, and we want to be consistent that this is a similar process to the other regulated
<br /> 309 subdivisions we do, largely minor subdivisions, and you'll be hearing more about those in a
<br /> 310 moment. And how do we serve the county's goals and objectives,and the county does have
<br /> 311 goals to diversify its housing stock and provide more housing options in the county. It also has
<br /> 312 goals to protect farmland and the environment and the open space. So there is a, I think largely a
<br /> 313 public engagement concern of bringing these to a public venue when there is not recourse for the
<br /> 314 public to change what is before them,and it has all the appearance of a hearing when, in fact, it is
<br /> 315 not. The public isn't even privileged to speak unless it's given that privilege by the board, so that
<br /> 316 really is why we're here today. So what does the state say about subdivision amendments,or
<br /> 317 subdivisions? We do have the authority to regulate subdivisions. Otherwise, if we don't seek that
<br /> 318 authority, the private property owners in North Carolina have the right to subdivide their land. So,
<br /> 319 if we don't regulate it,we would be essentially having a fairly unstructured anarchy of subdivisions
<br /> 320 throughout the county. So, if we choose to regulate it,we may by ordinance, and we may with,
<br /> 321 provide for the review and approval of sketch plans and preliminary plats. We also may regulate
<br /> 322 subdivisions differently. We can have minors,we can have majors,we can have flexible
<br /> 323 developments, and we can have conventional developments. That is all, those rights are given to
<br /> 324 us as a local government by the state, and we may—that last sentence is important—make
<br /> 325 decisions on approval or denial of preliminary final plats only on the basis of standards explicitly
<br /> 326 set forth in the subdivision or unified development ordinance. Again,we don't have any leeway to
<br /> 327 negotiate for things that aren't set in black and white in our ordinance as a standard to comply.
<br />
|