Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
41 <br />1 additional written comments before the hearing record is closed." A copy of this letter , in its <br />2 entirety, is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. <br />3 <br />4 Ms. Barrows introduced Planning Director Craig Benedict and asked him to present Items <br />5 C1 and C2. Mr. Benedict introduced the newest member of the Planning Department's staff, <br />6 Robert Davis of Kernersville, North Carolina. Mr. Davis has ten years of experience in <br />7 municipal engineering. <br />8 <br />9 ~ C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS <br />10 1. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS <br />11 (a) SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT <br />12 (1) Section C.3 Ownership of Open Space <br />13 (2) Section D.1 Estate Lot Option <br />14 (3) Section D.2 Conservation. Option <br />15 (4) Section D.3 Cluster Option <br />16 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT <br />17 AMENDMENTS <br />18 (1) Flexible Development <br />19 (2) Open Space <br />20 Planning Director Benedict indicated that the Flexible <br />21 Development Standard regulations are in two sections of the Code. One has to do with <br />22 subdivision regulations and the other has to do with zoning regulations. The Flexible <br />23 Development Standards have been reviewed since December of 1998 and the Ordinance <br />24 Review Committee (ORC) of the Planning Board has discussed the pros and cons of these <br />25 regulations in depth. For example, the intent of the Flexible Development Standards is to <br />26 preserve open space and to orient open space in certain locations. However, when the <br />27 developers use the regulations they sometimes use them in a way that does not align itself with <br />28 that vision. The objective over the next year is to look at the regulations and make sure that <br />29 they are used as guidelines for implementation in a way that does align with the vision of the <br />30 Board of Commissioners. He said that he intends to present the regulations as they currently <br />31 exist and explain the suggested changes. There are four issues that are being reviewed. <br />32 <br />33 The first issue is the four different approaches for flexible development. They are 1) <br />34 conventional, 2) conservation, 3) cluster and 4) estate. Beginning with the estate approach he <br />35 stated that this is a four acre lot minimum which would cause a subdivision to be divided into <br />36 lots four acres in size. For example, a 100 acre subdivision would be divided into twenty-five <br />37 4-acre lots. There have been no estate requests in the time that Flexible Development <br />38 Standards have been in existence. A modification is being suggested to this option. However, it <br />39 is obviously not the most critical area to address due to lack of interest in this type of <br />40 development. He stated that, at this meeting, the conservation and cluster approaches would be <br />41 focused upon. The problematic point concerning the conservation approach is that the area <br />42 being designated for the conservation area was included on the buyer's deed in fee simple. <br />43 Property owners then felt that they could build as they wished on the entire lot, when in fact, <br />44 part of that land was in a conservation area. That is the biggest undesirable effect of the <br />45 conservation approach. In order to monitor the use of the conservation areas it would require <br />46 an extraordinary amount of independent work on the part of county staff. Because of this <br />47 concern the Planning Board and Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) have recommended that <br />