Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
45 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12- <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />This needs to be approached carefully so that a unexpected burden is not created on <br />conventional developments. Also, in the future, the Planning Staff will review roadside buffer <br />requirements in the future. <br />Commissioner Carey referred to page 5, Article 22, Definitions (a) and asked if there <br />had been cases where developers attempted to use front and side yard setbacks as open <br />space. <br />Mr. Benedict stated that developers have, in fact, attempted to use those setbacks as <br />open space. He indicated that open space is supposed to be located in contiguous open <br />stretches, however, developers have attempted to use areas not intended to be considered <br />open space. .Hopefully,. some of those loopholes have been closed. <br />Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 16, 3rd bullet "...house IQts should abut <br />undivided open space..." and suggested that the phrase "where. possible" be included. A <br />significant natural area could exist which would be situated in such a way that it would not be <br />possible to design the subdivision with the majority of the lots abutting it. He also asked if there <br />is a requirement that utility lines be buried. <br />Mr. Benedict indicated that they could reword this section to include Commissioner <br />Jacobs comments. With regard to the utilities, he thought that they are all required to be <br />underground. He indicated that they would double check this and reportback to the Board of <br />County Commissioners. <br />Chair Gordon referred to page 11, bullet #4 and asked how developers could make <br />sure that their open space is contiguous to that located'on adjacent lots. <br />Mr. Benedict stated that this can be accomplished during the lot layout design by <br />making sure that resources are not isolated. He mentioned that they expect the developer to <br />come up with several different options so that they can see which works best fior the <br />circumstances. This will not be a mandate. It will be worded so that it is clear that. this wiH be . <br />accomplished wherever possible. <br />Chair Gordon agreed that the phrase "where possible" should be included in this <br />bullet. <br />QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS . <br />Mr. Steve Yuhasz spoke in opposition to these amendments. He commented that there <br />was no incentive for a developer to build a Flexible Development. The goals of flexible <br />development are reasonable, however, these amendments are designed to discourage using <br />these standards. He stated that the estate option which requires 50% open space, none of <br />which can be used as side or rear setbacks, actually requires 73% of the lot be open~space: He <br />stated that there was no incentive to use this options. He referred to Section C.3 and <br />commented that it was not clear if the intent was to make all restrictive covenants irrevocable or <br />just those parts that refer to the ownership of the common areas. <br />