|
23
<br /> DRAFT
<br /> 933 term investment that has to be made, but any public dedications,whether it is for mostly just
<br /> 934 roads, those do go to the commissioners. So,we are affecting a number of sections of the
<br /> 935 ordinance and four articles. Some of these are fairly turnkey, and let's see, and some of them are
<br /> 936 more substantive. And we will go through them, not in all detail. You have the packet before you.
<br /> 937 1 have got my packet right over there, or details you would like to go through, and we could
<br /> 938 certainly pull it up too if we need to. But I just wanted to broadly go over generally what is being
<br /> 939 proposed in each one of these articles. There are three substantive changes that I am going to go
<br /> 940 into, and I did want to talk about before we get into that article by article. I will do it when we get to
<br /> 941 those sections, but the main one is expansion of the expedited subdivision to cover smaller
<br /> 942 acreage lots because there is a penalty there that I would like to address, and it comes up fairly
<br /> 943 regularly for us as a staff. So,the changes to Table 2.1 that are being proposed,they are pretty
<br /> 944 representative of what is being proposed broadly throughout all these other amendments, it would
<br /> 945 remove the planning board and the commissioners from review of major subdivisions and make
<br /> 946 that decision-making power for the planning director. It also proposes to remove the conditional
<br /> 947 district requirements, but that is just because conditional districts are zoning atlas amendments,
<br /> 948 so it is redundant with that row and confusing that there is not a special bucket for conditional
<br /> 949 districts. They are simply zoning atlas amendments, and they follow the same process as
<br /> 950 conditional districts. Section 2.9, addresses the,what we reviewed tonight, and puts it in black
<br /> 951 and white, is that if subdivisional land has been approved through conditional zoning like the
<br /> 952 Rigsbee Subdivision,then the process for approving the subdivision could follow, can be
<br /> 953 administered the same way as a otherwise regulated major subdivision regardless of the lot count,
<br /> 954 so. And then it also provides for phasing of subdivisions. And there is some nuance there,so the
<br /> 955 zoning requirements require a phasing plan, and in some situations a developer will say,well, I do
<br /> 956 not have a phasing plan that was approved by the commissioners, but I do want to phase this
<br /> 957 project, and where we have arrived and what is present in the amendments is it is fine that you
<br /> 958 want to phase the project. That is,you do not have to do the whole big chunk, but the bonds are
<br /> 959 going to be for the whole big chunk. We are not going to let you sub-bond the project, because
<br /> 960 you promised a single project to Orange County, and you will bond a whole project to Orange
<br /> 961 County. How you build it out is really up to you, but we will have what you promised to the county
<br /> 962 because it has gone through the process and been seen as an improvement, and that is why the
<br /> 963 land you have changed was authorized by our planning board and the elected body. Section
<br /> 964 2.13, it, a lot of this is to eliminate guidance language, and this is a bone that the attorney's office
<br /> 965 has to pick with the ordinance is there is too much guidance language in there. It is not a
<br /> 966 guidance document. That is the land use plan. This is a regulatory document. It is law. We
<br /> 967 should not be telling people what they should do. We should be telling people what they have to
<br /> 968 do or what they cannot do. And the exemption should pretty much be verbatim what the state of
<br /> 969 law is. We do not have discretion to interpret the law in this case. There is not a lot of daylight in
<br /> 970 there to,for interpretation. Section 2.14 for minor subdivisions is largely a reorganization to try to
<br /> 971 make it clear that we have an expedited section and a regulated section, and the expedited is
<br /> 972 subject to state law, and that we wanted to ensure, and this again gets to Commissioner Green's
<br /> 973 petition, that we eliminate any obstacles for the conservation subdivisions. Right now,we require
<br /> 974 a conventional layout. If you want to do a conservation subdivision,you have to provide us, or a
<br /> 975 flexible development subdivision, you have to provide us with a conventional layout, a flexible
<br /> 976 development layout, and a concept plan. So,you are doing more work than you would have to do
<br /> 977 for the conventional application. So,we have made those application standards the same. We try
<br /> 978 to figure out a way to make their fewer app requirements for the flexible or conservation approach
<br /> 979 but struggled with that, and you will notice I am using the term conservation. That is because that
<br /> 980 is what the ordinance uses. It does get into some kind of, some confusion with the land use plan
<br /> 981 conversations that we have had on the distinction between conservation and flexible
<br /> 982 developments, but we are not using them in that sense. We are using them as they exist in our
<br /> 983 ordinance today. So, I want to be clear about that, although I may have just confused you all. But
<br /> 984 we are not move,we do not have any tools right now in our box to do what Randall Arendt
<br /> 985 recommends,which is to take things like stream buffers and flood plains off the table as credit for
<br /> 986 open space at this time. That is not something that we have.
<br /> 987
<br />
|