Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
46 <br />1 Attorney Gledhill stated that this refers only to the area that the County actually <br />2 regulates. <br />3 <br />4 Mr. Yuhasz referred to the conservation cluster option which addresses the length to <br />5 width ratio of four-to-one. He asked who determines if a specific area is to be designated a <br />6 wildlife corridor or a neighborhood common? There needs to be guidelines which make this <br />7 more clear. He mentioned that the issue of using setbacks as open space could be resolved by <br />8 prohibiting the use of fences. If the land was not subdivided by fences it would then be <br />9 contiguous open space area. <br />10 <br />11 Chair Barrows asked Attorney Gledhill if another public hearing would need to be held if <br />12 the wording in the proposed amendments was changed prior to being returned to the Board of <br />13 County Commissioners. <br />14 -- <br />15 Attomey Gledhill felt that would not be necessary, however, he indicated that he would <br />16 look at that question more specifically prior to the Planning Board's recommendations being <br />17 retumed to the Board of County Commissioners. If, at that time, he determined that another <br />18 public hearing is necessary, he will advise the Board of County Commissioners. <br />19 <br />20 Planning Board member Katz stated that the conservation option as it currently exists <br />21 has been a failure. Side yards were used by almost all of the developers as open space. The <br />22 proposal being presented does present clear conservation areas. Developers using this new <br />~23 options would be creating beautiful open space for recreation. Under the plan in place now it <br />24 was hit or miss as to whether that would happen. <br />25 <br />26 Commissioner Jacobs commented that a logical solution to this situation is to decide if <br />27 Flexible Development should be mandatory. He asked staff and the Planning Board to consider <br />28 this as an option. <br />29 <br />30 Mr. Benedict agreed that the new standards are not going to have developers lining up <br />31 to use the conservation cluster options, however, it does delete an option that was <br />32 dysfunctional. He hoped to come forward with a Flexible Development option later in the year <br />33 after full consideration of the issue. This proposal will be both feasible, from the development <br />34 standpoint, and attractive with regard to the preservation goals. <br />35 <br />36 Commissioner Jacobs said that if the proposal being suggested this evening does not <br />37 generate, even in the short term, more flexible open space application, he would argue that we <br />38 have gone in the wrong direction. Possibly requiring flexible development in the short term, <br />39 while the issue is being further researched and improved, might result in some flexible <br />40 .development. <br />41 <br />42 Commissioner Brown commented on Commissioner Jacobs suggestion that the <br />43 Planning Department staff return with more recommendations on flexible development, <br />44 including making flexible development mandatory. She asked if Mr. Benedict would return with <br />45 those suggestions in the fall. <br />46 <br />