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