Agenda - 10-13-1999 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

43 1 2 Commissioner Carey asked what types of uses were being considered for the open 3 space in its new form under the ownership of quasi-public organizations. 4 ~ - 5 Mr. Benedict stated that if it were controlled by the homeowners association the, 6 regulations would be in the covenants which would establish and describe allowable uses, for 7 example, jogging/hiking trails, open playground use, private recreation uses, etc. The. 8 enforceability provision between homeowners associations and the county ismuch stronger 9 -than dealing one on one with a private property owner. If the land were transferred to another 10 organization, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, homeowners would, be aware of the fact 11 that those portions, of the land were not owned by them and their options for using that portion 12 of the land was restricted. Those restrictions could include that the trees could not be cut down 13 and that public use would, or would not, be available. The Triangle Land Conservancy is 14 looking at standardizing agreements. The most important issue is that by having the 15 conservation area as a separate tract the homeowners. would be more clear that it is not theirs 16 in fee. simple. 17 18 Commissioner Jacobs asked if any consideration was given to reviewing the 33% open 19 space that is required in the conservation cluster options to determine if that amountof open 20 space is sufficient. 21 22 Mr. Benedict stated that-they did look at that issue. Staff is in the process of 23 developing a model which would show how much open space is necessary fora buildable lot. 24 That is determined by the size of the septic field versus the buildable lot. He commented that he 25 felt we should wait until -the soil suitability analysis is completed prior to changing this number. 26 He stated that if the lots were smaller there would be a tighter open-space constraint. Staff will 27 be looking at this over the summer and present their findings in the fall. 28 29 Chair Gordon asked Mr. Benedict to compare the cluster option and the conservation 30 cluster option in terms of the number of {ots allowed. 31 32 Mr. Benedict indicated that in both the original cluster option- and the new conservation 33 cluster option the number of lots allowed is the same. The only change is that the ownership of 34 the conservation. areas would not rest with the landowner.- However, it is possible that the 35 conservation cluster option would result in a slightly smaller number of lots. He mentioned that 36 the Planning staff wi{I be looking at the minimum lot size standards. Over the course of the 37 summer many standards will be reviewed. ~ These include the Protected Watershed Standards, 38 Critical Area Watershed Standards, and the Cane Creek Reservoir Regulations... They want to 39 make sure that those regulations being implemented on top of the minimum lot size work in the 40 manner in which they are intended. They will present various scenarios to see how the different . 41 standards actually impact the different options. - 42 43 In response to a question, Mr. Benedict stated that the 5,000 square foot lot option 44 was deleted because in any scenario they came up with, it would not be possible to use. 45 ' 46 Planner Karen Lincoln stated the majority of the county where the subdivisions would be 47 located is zoned either A-R or R-1 and the minimum- allowed lot size in both of those districts is