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