HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-01-2003-9bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 1, 2003
Action Ager~d
Item No.
SUBJECT: Amendments to Open Space Standards for Flexible Development Subdivisions
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Ordinance as Recommended by Planning Board and
Administration
Questions and Answers from Public Hearing
Minutes from May 27, 2003 Public Hearing
Minutes from August 6, 2003 Planning Board Meeting
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Director, ext. 2592
Robert P. Davis, Planner III, ext 2580
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane (336)227-2031
PURPOSE: To close public hearing and consider proposed amendments to the Open Space
Standards in subdivisions following the Flexible Development option.
BACKGROUND: Flexible Development, Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations, was
adopted on July 1, 1996. Section C of the regulations requires that Flexible Subdivisions set aside
a minimum of 33% of the total project acreage as protected open space. The current open space
regulations set forth the required compositional elements for both Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas and, to a lesser degree, guidelines relating to open space shape design.
The intent of the proposed amendments is to improve the layout of open space by making it more
accessible to the public and property owners for vistas or use. This is in response to concerns that
some of the more recent subdivision proposals lacked in the goal of preserving the County's rural
character and, in appropriate cases, accessibility. These amendments address the primary
negative design criteria in the current regulations, that being the creation of large blocks of more
urban-style lots unbroken by natural areas and lacking open space connectivity.
These amendments were presented at the May 27, 2003 Public Hearing and comments were
received from the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Board members. The following
changes were made in the ordinance amendment text in response to those comments.
Public Hearing
1. The classification of `Pedestrian Access Paths' in Section C.3.c `Secondary Conservation
Areas' has been changed in name to `Pedestrian Open Space Area' (POSA). It has been
explicitly stated in the text that this designation does not require the construction of an
improved path, but must only be: a) 50-feet wide; b) in common ownership; c) undeveloped
except for recreational amenities, and d) reasonably traversable by foot. The determination
of when pedestrian improvements should be required in a POSA will be determined on a
case-by-case analysis of the overall open space goals of the proposed subdivision taking the
Planning Board recommendation into consideration.
2. An additional open space goal, `The Maintenance of Wildlife Corridors and Habitat', has
been added in Section C.2 `Planning for Open Space'.
3. The ordinance language has been edited throughout the amendment for improved
readability and brevity.
4. The language was changed in Section C.4 `Access to Open Space' to more clearly allow the
ability to limit general public encroachment into Flexible Subdivision open space. The
amendment still suggests that open space will `ideally' be available for the use of subdivision
residents and/or the general public. It is now stated that this access may not be reasonable
in all cases. As with the more flexible determination of access way improvements, public
access into open space is now considered acase-by-case decision based on the overall
goals of the subdivision's open space plan.
5. The required distances to open space put forth in Section C.4 `Access to Open Space' have
been made more flexible. The previous language required that a certain number of lots
would have to be 300 feet or 600 feet from an accessible point of open space. The new
language requires those lots to be `approximately' those distances from open space,
reflecting that the basis of those distances would be according to the overall merit of the
open space proposal.
6. Anew paragraph was added at the beginning of Section C.2, `Planning for Open Space'
stressing the need for open space to be planned and to become a comprehensive inclusion
into the subdivision design. The language is designed to allow a stronger basis for the case-
by-case analysis of open space arrangement in Flexible Subdivision plans by the Planning
Board and Board of County Commissioners.
Planning Board
On August 6, 2003, the Planning Board recommended approval of the language changes. These
changes have been incorporated into the text of the proposed ordinance.
1. The language setting out the Functional Open Space Goals in the second paragraph of
Section C.2 "Planning For Open Space" has been changed to make its purpose more clearly
delineated. Previously, the language stated that "[o]pen space...is functional when it
positively furthers as many of the following goals as possible", and was followed by a list of
eight open space goals. It now reads that open space is functional if it "prominently provides
at least one of the following uses", followed by a list of three open space goals. The
remaining five goals, which are essentially sub-goals contained within one of the main three
goals, are listed separately, and are required to be "addressed...when relevant".
2. In Section C.5 "Ownership of Open Space", a previously unchanged section, the language
was added in paragraphs regarding both fee simple and conservation easement dedications
that "the County may reject any proposed dedication at its discretion prior to or during the
application".
3. The term `man-made features' in Section C.2 "Planning for Open Space -Composition" was
changed to `constructed features' in respect to the County's policy on gender-neutral
language.
4. Section F.1 "General Criteria" previously read that open space should be "beneficial to
stated open-space goals". It now reads "supportive of stated open-space goals".
5. An additional category - "View Preservation Areas" -was added to the Section F.1 "General
Criteria" list of uses that would be suitable exceptions to the preference against fragmented
or long, narrow open space shapes. "View Preservation Areas" is given a brief parenthetical
definition in the text - "also vistas or visual amenity preservation areas -areas left open to
allow public views to one or more natural or constructed features of high visual quality".
2
3
Process
Public Hearing held on May 27, 2003.
Planning Board recommended approval of the amendments on August 6, 2003.
BOCC to make decision no sooner than September 16, 2003.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no public fiscal impacts associated with this decision.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Administration recommends APPROVAL of the attached
ordinance.
Ordinance as recommended by Planning Board and Administration 4
Bold-proposed new ordinance language
striketpr- proposed deleted ordinance language
An Ordinance Amending the Subdivision Regulations of Orange County
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina,
that the Subdivision Regulations are hereby amended as follows:
Section 1 Amend Section IV-B-10. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (Pages 61-65) to read as follows:
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.1 Minimum Required Open Space
Where a developer elects to seek approval of a Flexible Development as specified herein,
at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the Flexible Development must
be set aside as protected open space. Such open space shall meet these standards unless
the developer chooses to seek approval of a conventional subdivision as specified herein.
C.2 Planning For Open Space
Open space design in subdivision projects shall be planned as part of a
comprehensive project design. The long-term success of open space is improved
when a layout is chosen with a perspective of future usefulness, efficiency, and
compatibility with both existing development and other types of open spaces. Open
space is an important amenity for subdivision residents and an essential part of the
County's character and environmental quality. Open space planning must indicate
a thoughtful understanding of that importance, and shall be evaluated based on its
merits.
A Flexible Development subdivision plan shall always provide open space which
prominently provides at least one of the three following uses:
• The Maintenance of Wildlife Corridors and/or Habitat;
• The Protection of Rural Character
• The Creation or Protection of Space for Outdoor Recreation
and address the following additional uses when relevant:
• The Protection of Other Natural Resources
• The Improvement or Maintenance of Visual Amenities
• The Creation or Protection of Managed Resource Production
• The Improvement or Maintenance of Public Health and Safety
• The Creation or Protection of Public Purpose and/or Utility
Infrastructure.
Ordinance as recommended by Planning Board and Administration 5
The primary way to achieve these open space design goals is by the application of
standards to three fundamental land characteristics defined below.
Composition -The natural and constructed ~e features of land
indicate what types of open-space goals it can support. For each of the
listed open space goals, certain characteristics are required or preferred.
Compositional requirements and preferences are stated throughout this
section.
• Accessibility -All Flexible Development plans shall, unless the open space
is to preserve conservation values that require minimal disturbance,
provide open space access to the public at large and/or subdivision
residents, in accordance with Section C.4.
Size and Shape -The usefulness of open space can be lessened when it is
fragmented or shaped in long narrow segments. The most functional
open space is large enough to maximize the benefits to ecological,
environmental, cultural, recreational and/or visual uses. Size and shape
requirements are listed in Section F.1.
An open space plan may use other land characteristics as well, if a direct link to the
goals of Section C.2 is shown.
C.3G~Types of Open Space
The types of open space conserved through Flexible Development shall be consistent
with the following standards:
a. Open space shall be comprised of two types of land: "Primary Conservation Areas"
and "Secondary Conservation Areas ".
b. Primary Conservation Areas These areas
have sensitive environmental features and/or significant cultural resource
areas, which may make them legally or practically unbuildable. These areas
are the first open spaces to be chosen towards meeting the minimum 33%
requirement. Secondary Conservation Areas may not be counted towards the
33% requirement unless all potential Primary Conservation Areas, other than
expansion areas as defined below, have been set aside.
Wetlands, including, but not limited to, streams, creeks, ponds, reservoirs,
stormwater management facilities for watershed protection purposes, and
adjoining land areas identified as part of:
0 The National Wetlands Inventory Maps for the county, prepared by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Ordinance as recommended by Planning Board and Administration 6
0 The "Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey," prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service;
0 The "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats," as prepared by
the Triangle Land Conservancy;
0 LANDSAT satellite data collected and analyzed under the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine Study;
0 A required environmental assessment or environmental impact statement;
and/or
0 A site analysis conducted by a registered engineer, land surveyor,
landscape architect, architect or land planner using data from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
• Floodplains (100-year) and alluvial soils identified as part of:
0 The "Flood Insurance Study: Orange County, N.C.," prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and
0 The "Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey," prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service.
• Steep Slopes, defined as those greater than 25 percent, identified as part of:
0 The "Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey," prepared by the U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service; and/or
0 A site analysis conducted by a registered engineer, land surveyor,
landscape architect, architect or land planner and calculated using
topographic maps from an actual surveyor from the U.S. Geological
Survey.
• Natural Areas, and Wildlife Habitats a~E--~~~rs-as identified as part of:
0 The "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats," as prepared by
the Triangle Land Conservancy;
0 A required environmental assessment or environmental impact statement;
and/or
0 An independent site study conducted by a trained botanist and/or biologist.
• Historic and Archaeological Sites listed on the National Register of Historic
Places or included on the state's national register study list, designated as a local
historic landmark, designated as a local historic district, and/or identified as
having a high potential for archaeological remains as part of:
0 The "Chapel Hill Township Architectural Survey: Final Report";
0 The "Orange County Multiple Property Documentation Form: Historic
Resources of Orange County";
0 "An Archaeological Survey of Portions of Orange County, N.C.";
0 A required environmental assessment or environmental impact statement;
and/or
0 An independent site study conducted by a trained architectural historian or
archaeologist.
Where a historic or archaeological site is to be set aside as a separate lot, and
preserved and/or restored as part of a flexible development, the entire area within
the lot maybe credited toward meeting the minimum open space requirement.
Ordinance as recommended by Planning Board and Administration 7
• Wildlife Corridors as identified by Section 2.2 of the most recent Land Use
Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
• Expansion of anv of these areas
• A single, connected area of open space that meets one or more of
the provided definitions of Primary Conservation Area may be
expanded by up to 20% of its area to provide an additional buffer.
Although the expanded area might not meet any other definitions
of Primary Conservation Area, it may be considered as such,
except that:
a) Expansion areas may not be, in turn, expanded under this
provision,
b) Expansion areas may not be selected as Primary Conservation
Area unless all site areas meeting any other Primary
Conservation Area definition have already been selected as
open space, and
~ Expansion areas must be in the same natural state as the
Primary Conservation Area that is being expanded.
c. Secondary Conservation Areas If there is not
enough Primary Conservation Area acreage on site to meet the mandatory 33%
open space requirement and there is no off-site Primary Conservation areas
proposed, then Secondary Conservation Areas shall be used to complete the 33%
requirement. Secondary Conservation Areas have fewer restrictions, with regard to
location, and allow more flexibility to improve overall open space design and
purpose. These areas, unless specified otherwise, receive full credit toward meeting
the minimum-open space requirement of Flexible Developments.
Access -Open space may be chosen as a Secondary Conservation Area
because of its benefit in providing open space access to residential lots in
accordance with regulations listed in Section C.4. These areas shall also
include desired compositional, size and shape attributes, as listed in this
section.
Composition -Sites chosen for Secondary Conservation Areas must have one
or more of the following characteristics or uses:
• Woodlands, including forestland for the planting and production of trees and
timber, where management practices such as selective timber harvesting and
wildlife enhancement are employed. Such woodlands may consist of
hardwood, pine, and/or mixed pine-hardwood forests identified as part of:
0 LANDSAT satellite data collected and analyzed under the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine Study;
0 A site analysis conducted by a registered engineer, land surveyor,
landscape architect, architect or land planner using aerial photographs
and/or satellite imagery;
Ordinance as recommended by Planning Board and Administration 8
0 A required environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement; and/or
0 An independent site study conducted by a trained botanist and/or
forester.
Farmland, especially prime agricultural land as identified by the U.S.D.A.
Soil Conservation Service in "Important Farmlands: Orange County, N.C."
and which is in active use for the production of crops and/or raising of
livestock. Farmland also includes space on individual lots used for gardens,
ponds, horse paddocks and barns, and similar uses.
Slopes of 1 S% to 25% that require special site planning due to their erosion
potential, limitations for septic tank nitrification fields, and terrain or elevation
changes. Such areas maybe suitable for building, but higher site preparation
and construction costs are to be expected.
• Other Historic and/or Archaeological Sites identified from the same sources
as for primary conservation area sites.
• Public and/or Private Recreation Areas and Facilities, including:
0 "Active recreation areas" such as public recreation areas, including
district and community parks as identified in the master recreation and
parks plan; and private recreation facilities, including golf courses,
playing fields, playgrounds, swimming pools and courts for tennis,
basketball, volleyball and similar sports. Because they represent uses
in which natural lands are cleared, graded and managed for intensive
activities, only half (50 percent) of the land in this category maybe
credited toward meeting the minimum open space requirement.
0 "Passive recreation areas" such as pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian
trails, picnic areas, community commons or greens, and similar kinds
of areas, whether public or private. Land in this category receives full
credit toward meeting the minimum open space requirement.
• Scenic Views, especially of natural and cultural features from designated
scenic road corridors, including views from the road as well as views outward
from potential home sites. Landscape buffers that screen the view of
development and preserve the character of rural public roads are also included
in this category.
• Pedestrian Open Space Areas (POSA) -- traversable corridors at least 50
feet wide, undeveloped except for pedestrian recreation amenities, and in
common ownership. POSA's are not required to have constructed
walking paths, but they must be reasonably passable on foot. The final
composition of a POSA's shall be evaluated of the intent of the overall
Ordinance as recommended by Planning Board and Administration 9
access plan in the subdivision. If the POSA's connect active or passive
recreation areas, or if the POSA's are identified as a recreation amenity,
then a constructed path can be required as a part of the approval process.
Landscaping to ensure compatibility with the natural and scenic goals of
open space shall also be evaluated.
POSA's are not intended to be used in order to connect significant habitat
and wildlife open-space sections. Wildlife corridors are for this purpose.
All pedestrian open space access areas shall be connected to another type
of open space. In a Flexible Development subdivision, all existing access
ways shall, if practicable, be connected into a single system. Flexible
Subdivisions shall also have at least one POSA and, when practicable,
connect to at least one outside edge of the subdivided property, in order
to preserve the ability to connect the POSA with future, adjacent
projects.
Roadside Buffers, areas buffering public roads, when they are at least 75
feet in width, measured in one direction from the nearest edge of the
right-of--way. Roadside buffers must be composed of undisturbed natural
vegetation or where enhanced vegetation is installed as a condition of the
approval.
• Greenbelt Linkages, areas that can be used as part of a connected
greenbelt path, within an approved County Greenbelt program.
Size and Shape -Secondary Conservation Areas, to the extent possible, shall
be part of substantially sized and/or contiguously linked open space sections
and meet guidelines as stated in Section F.1.
uTCSrQ°~~Av~'1~~-cax=2'SS~pccirc~v+srl'rEi'b~'i-a° ~ x,11 0,7;+ ~.,....,r.a ,Y,oo+:.,
C.4 Access to Open Space
General public accessibility to and within open space shall be evaluated
on a case-by-case analysis of the goals and the intended use(s) of the open
space in that particular development.
Primary Conservation Areas, due to their considerable recreation, scenic
and cultural public values, shall be made available for the use of the
public at large through access by public road. However, it will not be
feasible for public use to be provided in all cases (e.g. fragile cultural
sites, protected and/or private habitat areas, hazardous slopes and
wetlands, etc.).
Ordinance as recommended by Planning Board and Administration 10
Secondary Conservation Areas shall be available to, at least, subdivision
residents, particularly when it includes active and passive recreation
areas. In some cases, this level of public entry may not be appropriate
(e.g. working timber or agricultural resource areas).
• If less than half of designated open space is Primary Conservation Area,
the subdivision plan shall provide direct access to Primary or Secondary
Conservation Area to at least 75% of project lots. The remaining lots
shall be within approximately 300 feet of an accessible point of Primary
or Secondary Conservation Area.
If the majority of open space is Primary Conservation Area, the
subdivision plan shall provide direct access to Primary or Secondary
Conservation Area to at least 50% of project lots. The remaining lots
shall be within approximately 600 feet of an accessible point of Primary
or Secondary Conservation Area.
C-5 E-~-Ownership of open space.
Open space within a flexible development maybe owned and/or administered by any of
the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall be
permanently restricted from further subdivision.
• Fee simple dedication to the county, another unit of local government,
the state or a private nonprofit land conservancy. The county may
reject any proposed dedication at its discretion prior to or during
the application.
• Dedication of conservation easements to the county, another unit of
local government, the state or a private nonprofit land conservancy.
Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a
homeowner's association and/or to all or portions of individual lots
owned by one or more property owners. The county may reject any
proposed dedication at its discretion prior to or during the
application.
• Ownership by a homeowner's association where specific development
restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of its
bylaws and as irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants.
• Ownership by individual property owners, of estate lots only, where
specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are
included as part of restrictive covenants and/or permanent
conservation easements applicable to such lots.
Ordinance as recommended by Planning Board and Administration 11
Where conservation easements have been dedicated and accepted prior to application for
approval of a flexible development proposal, the land subject to the easement may be
counted toward satisfying the 33 percent open space requirement, :provided that it is a
portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided.
C-6 E-~-Maintenance of Open Space
Natural features shall be maintained in their natural condition, but may be modified to
improve their appearance, functioning or overall condition, as recommended by experts
in the particular area being modified. Permitted modifications may include the following:
• Reforestation;
• Woodland management;
• Pasture or cropland management;
• Buffer area landscaping
• Stream bank protection; and/or
• Wetlands management
Unless accepted for dedication or otherwise agreed to by the county, another unit of local
government, the state or a private nonprofit land conservancy, the cost and responsibility
of maintaining open space and any facilities located thereon shall be borne by the
property owner and/or homeowner's association.
Section 2 Section F EVALUATION CRITERIA
All open space planning should show consideration of the specific physical
characteristics of the land parcel being developed, creativity in design, and
maximization of functionality. At ~ any given site, the types of resources may vary
widely in importance ; (e.g., a natural area compared to a historic site) and ;~~or
each type of resource may have areas of greater or lesser significance ;(e.g. a notable
example of local vernacular building traditions compared to a much altered older home).
Priorities for conserving such resources should therefore be based upon a thorough site
analysis and an understanding of what is more special, unique, noteworthy,
environmentally sensitive and/or historic as compared with other similar features of
different types of resources.
In evaluating the layout of lots and open space, the following criteria will be considered
as indicating design appropriate to the site's features and meeting the intent of the
Flexible Development standards. Whereas diversity and originality in lot layout are
encouraged, it is recognized that not all objectives may be achieved on a given site. Each
applicant must therefore achieve the best possible relationship between development and
preservation objectives.
F.1 General Criteria
The following criteria apply to all Flexible Development projects:
Ordinance as recommended by Planning Board and Administration 12
• The shape and placement of tie open space shall be reasonably contiguous,
coherently configured, a~ shall abut existing or potential open space on adjacent
properties, and shall be supportive of ~e~ae€ie~ialE to stated open space goals.
0 0 0 ~~
.Open
space should not be overly fragmented or in long narrow segments (except in the
case of pedestrian access ways, stream or wildlife corridors, greenbelt paths,
view preservation areas (also vistas or visual amenity preservation areas - an
area left open to allow for the public viewing of one or more natural or
constructed features of high visual quality), or landscape buffers adjoining street
rights-of--way and/or neighborhood boundaries).
Open space shall be connected, when applicable and reasonable, to other open
space in the same project and/or to existing or potential off-site open space or
pedestrian paths in land parcels adjacent to the Flexible Development area.
• The pedestrian. circulation system shall be designed to ensure that pedestrians can
walk safely and easily on the site, between properties and activities or special features
within the neighborhood open space system. All roadside footpaths should connect
with off-road trails, and link with existing or potential open space on adjoining
parcels.
• Protect and preserve all wetlands, floodplains and steep slopes from clearing, grading,
filling or construction except as may be approved by the board of commissioners.
• Landscape common areas (neighborhood greens), cul-de-sac islands, and both sides
of new streets with native specie shade trees and flowering shrubs with high wildlife
conservation value.
Section 3 This ordinance is effective upon adoption.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners
that this Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Amending the Subdivision Regulations of
Orange County" is adopted.
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by
Commissioner ,the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this
the day of , 2003.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of
Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so
much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2003
as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are
recorded in the minutes of said Board.
Ordinance as recommended by Planning Board and Administration 13
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this _ day of ,
2003.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
SEAL
14
Flexible Subdivision Open Space Amendment
Questions and Answers
Public Hearing S/27/03
1 -Why, under the proposed amendment, do some Flexible Subdivisions have
different open space proximity requirements?
The proposed regulation states that a subdivision plan with more than 50% of its open
space defined as Primary Conservation Area will be required to provide direct access to
open space for 50% of lots and access to open space within approximately 600 feet to the
rest of the lots. Subdivision plans in which the open space is less than or equal to 50%
Primary Conservation Area will have to provide direct access to 7S% of the lots and
access within approximately 300 feet to the remainder.
The reason for the difference between projects is that Primary Conservation Area is
determined by a small number ofpre-selected natural or cultural values, meaning that that
these areas cannot be moved or reshaped. Secondary Conservation Area, on the other
hand, can be chosen through commonly existing characteristics that can be
accommodated in many more locations. Because of this, a site plan where a majority of
open space is Secondary Conservation Area offers more opportunity, and responsibility,
to place the open space where it will be more easily accessible to residents and/or the
general public. Conversely, if the same accessibility goals were applied when the
majority of the open space in a development was in apre-determined location, the
developer would end up being negatively impacted despite protecting the highly valuable
Primary Conservation Areas on the property.
The 600-foot and 300-foot figures were chosen as representative of a reasonable distance
that someone would walk to open space and a reasonable number of lots that should be
allowed in a row in a rural subdivision without any connected open space. 600 feet is the
width of approximately four rural lots and 300 feet is the width of approximately two
rural lots. Having looked at other projects, this distance was thought to be a fair measure
for maintaining County character while still being practical to accommodate in new
development proposals.
The most current version of the proposed amendment has made the 600-foot and 300-foot
figures `approximate', rather than fixed. This recognizes the need to evaluate the overall
merit of the open space proposal in a particular subdivision. This language should allow
the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners to be more flexible in the
application of this rule on projects with varied characteristics.
2 -What is the level of general public access required to open space in a Flexible
Development Subdivision?
The proposed amendment suggests that Primary Conservation Area should be `ideally'
open to the general public, as these areas have high public values because of their natural
15
and cultural attributes. In some cases, this open use will be mandated by a Parks and
Recreation land dedication, as part of the subdivision plan approval. There is, however,
no requirement that private open space be open to the public. In some cases, open spaces
may have limited access because of fragile habitats or steep slopes. Plans should at least
accommodate local subdivision access to private Primary Conservation Areas for
maintenance purposes.
Secondary Conservation Areas are intended to be available to, at least, the subdivision
residents, particularly when they include pedestrian paths and other active or passive
private recreation areas. Again, this is not required. There are some defined Secondary
Conservation Area uses that would not necessarily be compatible with public access,
such as managed timber and agricultural resource areas.
In all circumstances, the overall goals of a project's open space plan should be taken into
account on a case-by-case basis when determining the level of public or private access to
its open spaces. These plans of access and use would be according to the subdivision
Resolution of Approval.
3 -What is the definition of a pedestrian access way?
A pedestrian access way is a Secondary Conservation Area that is undeveloped, fifty feet
wide, under common ownership and reasonably passable by foot. There is no
requirement that a path be constructed in pavement, gravel, mulch., or any other material.
The building of a path maybe appropriate, and projects should be examined on a case-
by-case basis to determine when the open space purpose and layout suggest that a path
should be built.
For example, a walkway ringing a development, or leading to a developed park may
require a constructed path to be fully useful as an outdoor recreational amenity. An open
channel between homes that leads into undeveloped Primary Conservation Area may not
have as much use for a developed trail, since the stream bank, wetland or habitat area it
leads to may itself not be suited for general pedestrian traffic.
The language in this section has been changed from the version presented at the Public
Hearing. At that time, this was referred to as a `Pedestrian Access Path'. This change
was made to make it clearer that this open space is only required to be an open corridor.
It is also now explicitly stated that an improved path is not required. Some landscaping
may be requested for passability purposes or an improvement of the overall functionality
of the space (rather than being a barren strip).
The pedestrian access way is probably the easiest way to create Secondary Conservation
Areas, since it does not have other composition requirements that increase cost or limit
potential locations. It is intended that the liberal allowance of this open space will
encourage developers to use pathways to ensure the accessibility of all residents to open
space. The access ways are not intended to be interchangeable with wildlife corridors,
and serve as linkages between large habitat and natural resource areas.
16
4 -Why are pedestrian access ways mandated at fifty feet in width?
Currently, there is no width requirement for open space paths, which have been as narrow
as 15-foot easement corridors in some recent project proposals. Homes in a Flexible
Development Subdivision have a 20-foot setback requirement, so it is possible that
pedestrians maybe forced to walk very closely to residences. This forces a sense of
encroachment and trespass on the pedestrians, and increases the likelihood that
homeowners will be disturbed. A 50-foot commonly owned pedestrian area, combined
with the 20-foot home setbacks, ensures a 90-foot area between homes with ample space
for pedestrians to pass. This should increase the usefulness of the paths to visitors and
make them more palatable to adjacent residents.
This requirement does not mean that improved walking paths would have to be made 50-
feet wide. There is no mandated width for any actual recreational paths. The proposed
rule only creates a 50-foot wide natural comdor, of which an improved path may or may
not be a part, pursuant to Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners' approval.
Fifty feet was selected because it is consistent with existing Parks and Recreation
language mandating 50-foot corridors for connecting public open-space parcels.
5 -How would these proposed changes affect projects in the Urban Growth
Boundary versus a Rural Conservation Area? How will these proposed subdivision
changes affect affordable housing plans?
Concern was expressed that forcing increased access to open space might reduce lots and
raise home prices. In particular, the question was raised about how this would affect
development in the more densely developable areas in the Urban Growth Boundary, as
compared to projects in the more rural portions of the county.
In both urban and rural settings, proximity to open space is considered a desirable
characteristic of residential housing development. The proposed open space amendment
is not designed to change densities or mandate identical development styles throughout
the County. Open space will still be able to fit the goals and location of a particular new
development.
The majority of subdivisions being reviewed in Orange County are in rural areas, where
the open space component is generally intended for wildlife and environmental resource
protection. Minimum lot sizes of 40,000 square feet are typical. In the rural areas,
cluster subdivisions are encouraged, and the proposed amendment is intended to
intersperse the open space access points, allowing that protected rural space to be viewed
and used in the developed area.
In the Urban Growth Boundary, open space is used more often as a shared recreational
amenity, because residents may not have large enough yards to have recreation space on
their own property. Typically in the Urban Growth Boundary, the presence of water and
17
sewer infrastructure will allow minimum lot sizes of 14,000 square feet. The open space
requirement should add value to the urban development, but not significantly decrease
density, nor allow additional lots. In some cases, a developer may increase densities by
dedicating off-site additional open space (Section G, Sudivision Ordinance), or on- or
off-site affordable housing, thereby restoring any lost lots caused by the open space
ordinance amendment.
Residents of cluster subdivisions in the Urban Boundary will benefit from the proposed
amendment by the provision of nearby recreation amenities. The cluster subdivision may
be used in both the rural and urban areas, but it will continue to look very different
depending on the minimum lot sizes and open space uses.
It is not expected that these changes will significantly reduce lots in either setting.
Examples using existing subdivision plans were provided at the public meeting, showing
that the effect this amendment would have on total lot potential is expected to be small.
In the examples, the number of lots that would be removed to meet the standard were a
small percentage of the total number. If these subdivision plans had been designed using
the proposed open space guidelines from the beginning, it may have been possible to
reduce the number of lost lots even further, or perhaps to even retain all lots through
improved site design.
18
APPROVED 08/19/2003 MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
May 27, 2003
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in
joint session for a public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the F. Gordon
Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon,
Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County
Managers Rod Visser and Gwen Harvey and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other
staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Hunter Schofield and
members Crauford Goodwin, Barry Katz, Sam Lasris, Renee Price, Noah Ranells, and
Ted Triebel
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray and members
Jay Bryan, Howard McAdams, Rachel Preston, and Maria Tadd
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE
A. 1.OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Brown said that Commissioner Carey could not be in attendance. She stated
the reasons for the public hearing. There are two school items and three planning items.
A. 2. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
B. SCHOOLS ITEM
1. Proposed Third High School In The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools
System
John Link gave a summary of the major elements of the process that they have gone
through in looking at providing high school space for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
School system (CHCCS). In spring of 2001, the Capital Needs Task Force made
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners that-there was a need for two
elementary schools in the CHCCS. One school is being built at Meadowmont and the
other one is Elementary School #10. Since that time and since the voters approved the
bonds in 2001, the CHCCS board has identified alternatives for high school space. The
school board is proposing the site at Rock Haven Road. Because the voters did vote on
funding for elementary schools with the bonds, then this public hearing is to hear
19
comments on transferring the $12.8 million from Elementary School #10 to High School
#3. He said that the County staff looks at it as
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis
to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be
returned to the BOCC no sooner than August 19, 2003.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Orange County Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
a. Amend Sections II, IV and other related sections to define and
regulate the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and
construction debris associated with the development of
subdivisions.
This item was addressed above.
b. Amend Section IV-B-10. Flexible Development -Section C,
Open Space Standards to require that at least 75% of
residential lots in a proposed development be contiguous on
one or more sides to the system of open space.
Craig Benedict said that this is a requested amendment to the subdivision requirements
related to flexible development. Presently, the requirement for open space is 33% if the
flexible development option is used. The proposed amendment is an effort to explain more
about the functionality of the open space and the characteristics of it. He gave some
examples of subdivisions in the County and the configuration of the open space. The
intention is not to reduce the amount of lots, but to increase the accessibility of the open
space.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the 50-foot easement. Craig Benedict said that this
would just be open space and a 50-foot corridor would make the open space accessible
and would not encroach upon the adjacent properties.
Commissioner Gordon asked how big the path would be. Craig Benedict said that this is
not a requirement for a path to be put in. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that the
language says "pedestrian access paths". Craig Benedict said that this language could be
changed. The subdivision applicant will decide, with direction, what the 50-foot area should
look like.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the side yard setbacks and Craig Benedict said 20 feet.
Commissioner Jacobs said that this is an improvement to the open space provisions. He
suggested on page 11 - C2 -Open Space Functionality, "maintenance of wildlife habitat."
He also suggested putting some of the language in more understandable terms for the
public.
Hunter Schofield said that some high-density developments such as affordable housing
might come into conflict with these amendments. He said that we might need to look at
how we use our open space standards to help or hinder some other County priorities.
20
Renee Price asked about the setback requirements and open space and the impact it
would have on lower and moderate-income housing.
Craig Benedict said that they would accent this about the impacts as they move forward.
He said that in some cases the open space adds to the value of the lots and it also
supports clustering lots and could make them more affordable. Richmond Hills in Efland is
a good example of affordable housing and open space working together.
Craufurd Goodwin asked about open space in primary conservation areas and if it was
open to the general public. Craig Benedict said that there is no mandate for it to be open to
the general public. If it is a primary conservation area and it is dedicated to the public, this
will be determined during the subdivision process.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the 300 feet or less from the open space access point
and 600 feet or less. She asked Craig Benedict how he came up with these numbers.
Craig Benedict said they looked at existing subdivisions over the last four years and which
ones had good access and ones that were not meeting the goal of connectivity. He said
that they would elaborate more on some of the examples of the standards. Commissioner
Gordon just wants the staff to think about it and what it means.
Commissioner Jacobs said that since the 300-foot and the 600-foot standards are arbitrary
numbers based on previous experience, he suggested having some flexibility without
sacrificing the intent. Craig Benedict agreed that flexibility is important.
Public Comment -none
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis
to accept the Manager's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the
Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than
August 19, 2003.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AucvsT 6, 2003
REGULAR MEETING: 6:30-9:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill at Large; Nicole Gooding-Ray, Chapel Hill at
Large; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Dr. Barry Katz, Chapel Hill at Large;
Sam Lasris, Chapel Hill at Large; Howard McAdams, Cheeks Representative; Renee Price,
Chapel Hill at Large; Hunter Schofield, Cedar Grove Representative; Theodore Triebel, Little
River Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT: Noah Ranells, Bingham at Large; Maria Tadd, Bingham Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director; Tom Altieri,
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, David Lentzer, Planner II; Eddie Kirk, Planner II; Karen
Lincoln, Transportation Planner; Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director
OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Bird (Developer), Forest Evans (sales for BB Walker), Steve Yuhasz
(Surveyor)
AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Gooding-Ray called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM #2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. September, 2003 Calendar
^ August 11, 2003 Board of Adjustment regarding a 150-foot AT&T Tower
in the Bingham Township
^ August 19, 2003 Work Session for the August 25 meeting at 5:30 P.M. in
the Government Services Center '
^ August 25, 2003 Joint Meeting of the County Commissioners
b. Board of Adjustment Agenda Cover Sheet -August 11, 2003
AGENDA ITEM #3: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
Craig Benedict asked to switch items 11 and 12 around on the agenda.
Chair Gooding-Ray agreed.
AGENDA ITEM #4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 7, 2003 -Regular Meeting
MOTION was made by Barry Katz to accept the minutes with minor changes. Jay Bryan
seconded motion.
VOTE: Unanimous
22
VOTE: All ayes.
9. ii. Amendment in open space Standards for Flexible Subdivision Developments
Presenter: David Lentzer
PURPOSE: To consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on a
proposed amendment to the open space Standards in Subdivisions following the Flexible
Development option.
BACKGROUND: Flexible Development, Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations, was
adopted on July 1, 1996. Section C of the code requires that Flexible Subdivisions set aside at
least 33% of the total land area as protected open space. The current open space standards apply
required compositional elements for Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas, and some
guidelines for open space shape design.
The proposed amendment is designed to improve the layout of open space under these
regulations by making it more accessible to the public (i.e. subdivision property owners or, in
some cases, the general public) for view or use. This was in response to concerns that new
subdivisions were not maintaining the county's rural character because they were creating lazge
blocks of more urban-style residential lots unbroken by natural areas and lacking open space
connectivity.
The initial amendment was brought forth at the May 27, 2003 Public Hearing and comments
were received from the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board. The following
changes have been made in the ordinance amendment text in response to those comments:
1. The classification of `Pedestrian Access Paths' in Section C.3.c `Secondary Conservation
Areas' has been changed in name to `Pedestrian Access Ways'. It has been explicitly stated
in the text that this designation does not require the construction of an improved path, but
must only be: a) 50 feet wide b) in common ownership c) undeveloped except for
recreational amenities and d) reasonably traversable by foot. The determination of when
pedestrian improvements should be required in an access way is left to acase-by-case
analysis of the overall open space goals of the proposed subdivision and recommended by the
Planning Boazd.
2. An additional functional open space goal, `The Maintenance of Wildlife Corridors and
Habitat', has been added in Section C.2 `Planning for Open Space'.
3. The ordinance language has been edited throughout the amendment for improved readability
and brevity.
4. The language was changed in Section C.4 `Access to Open Space' to more clearly allow the
ability to limit general public encroachment into Flexible Subdivision open space. The
amendment still suggests that open space will `ideally' be available for the use of subdivision
residents and/or the general public. It is now stated that this access may not be reasonable in
all cases. As with the more flexible determination of access way improvements, public
access into open space is now considered acase-by-case decision based on the overall goals
of the subdivision's open space plan.
10
23
5. The required distances to open space put forth in Section C.4 `Access to Open Space' have
been made more flexible. The previous language required that a certain number of lots
would have to be 300 feet or 600 feet from an accessible point of open space. The new
language requires those lots to be `approximately' those distances from open space,
reflecting that the basis of those distances would be according to the overall merit of the open
space proposal.
6. Anew paragraph was added at the beginning of Section C.2, `Planning for Open Space'
stressing the need for open space to be planned and to become a comprehensive inclusion
into the subdivision design. The language is designed to allow a stronger basis for the case-
by-case analysis of open space arrangement in Flexible Subdivision plans by the Planning
Board and Board of County Commissioners.
PROCESS
Public Hearing May 27, 2003
Planning Board Recommendation August 6, 2003
BOCC to make decision no sooner than August 19, 2003
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no public fiscal impacts associated with this decision.
David Lentzner stated the changes were basically.two types. One change was to improve the
clarity of the language. There are a few areas, where the language was confusing and was
changed. The other type of change was to make it less of a strict regulatory approach. The
language was changed to give the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners more
ability to tailor their requirements for open space to each development. The main changes were:
1) To change "Pedestrian Access Paths" to "Pedestrian Access Ways" to take away the
confusion about whether or not a path had to be constructed. The need for a path would be
applied on a case-by-case basis.
2) An additional functional open space goal - "The Maintenance of Wildlife Corridors and
Habitats".
3) Generally, the language was changed to improve readability and brevity.
4) The Section "Access to Open Space" now more clearly limits general public encroachment
into Flexible Subdivision Open Space.
5) In that same Section, required distances for access to open space have been made more
flexible.
6) Anew paragraph was added in Section C.2 stressing the need for open space to be planned.
Craufurd Goodwin expressed concern that the assumption was that everyone would like access
to Open Spaces and that somehow the public needs to be protected by forcing the developer to
guarantee access through proximity or direct accessibility. Why do you need to have this
included? Why not allow the developer simply construct this.
Chair Gooding-Ray asked if the open space is not available to the public, is it available to the
members of the subdivision even if they would cross someone else's lot.
11
24
Craig Benedict answered both questions by saying the primary or secondary conservation areas
will be available to the homeowners association participates with part ownership of that common
area. If this area is an environmental resources such as a stream buffer, in the homeowners
association document it would distinguish the difference. To answer the question about whether
we should dictate as to parts of the sites being accessible to the general public, how the open
space Program is designed should be available to all the homeowners in the subdivision and not
have it as an afterthought. There is a need for regulation to say don't separate your site by good
soil and bad soils and let that be the open space and subdivision design by setting some
percentages in what is primary and secondary open space.
Craufurd Goodwin did not see how that was connected. This deals only with the project lots not
with the general public. Secondly, if you want the developer to have a well thought out plan for
open space, that should be dealt with in the original presentation to the Planning Board. The
issue is `should the developer be required to make a certain portion of the lots have direct access
to that land'.
Craig Benedict stated that where there is a primary conservation area there were not as many
people, because you can't move the primary stream buffer. The secondary areas can be moved
throughout the site. Too often the visible lots were being clustered together with no open space
and looked crowded.
Jay Bryan would like to know if there is a Greenways Program in the County.
Craig Benedict answered there was not a specific Greenways Program. In the late 80s there was
discussion of a countywide system. That was a volatile subject and was not well received.
Jay Bryan asked i~ any of those newly identified areas on the map would be appropriate to do
greenways as opposed to the rural part of the County.
Craig Benedict answered that some of the regulations that discuss preserving conservation areas,
preserve them in some manner. The typical definition of greenways is open to the general
public. As part of our flexible development subdivisions we can preserve these green areas.
Jay Bryan commented that where the system is in place when the development comes, it affects
the development and the people who develop it or, it goes unnoticed that their land is part of it.
Craig Benedict said that in his opinion having something on a map that says greenway is the best
way to inform the general community and individuals who want to develop it. We will probably
talk about that issue in the next year and a have some of the Boards involved in parks and
recreation issues.
Howard McAdams expressed concerned that the Board is micromanaging the subdivision layout.
Craig Benedict noted the Mill Creek plan does achieve the goals of the new code. Some of the
access concerns in connecting the open space between Phase I and Phase II were achieved.
12
25
Ted Triebel asked the definition of "functional". There are 8 goals and categories so if it would
further one of those goals because the others are not possible, then is it functional open space?
Craig Benedict answered yes. If you take 1 and ignore 7 others, that is not furthering as many as
possible.
Craufurd Goodwin noted that on the second paragraph page 075, Section C.2, is much more
complicated that dedication to the County. This easement requires due diligence on the recipient
and that is fairly expensive. Is the State willing to accept loss of conservation easements from
these developments and be prepared to diligently fulfill the obligations to check those regularly.
Craig Benedict agreed that it is a complicated process. We have sparingly presented to the
property owners the various conservancies, asking if they are interested. This item is not
available to some of the properties unless it meets lofty conservation goals of third parties. We
could put additional information in that this is an option, but it is an involved option.
Craufurd Goodwin said that it sounded like the County is willing to accept any conservation
easement that it is given.
Jay Bryan said that it is the County's option to accept it.
Chair Gooding-Ray suggested there be a statement that the County may reject this option.
Craufurd Goodwin agreed.
Craig Benedict suggested putting a note under the heading that there is a process that may or
may not accept dedications in a certain manner.
Craufurd Goodwin asked for the definition of an estate lot.
Craig Benedict defined an estate lot as a 4 acre lot or larger.
Craufurd Goodwin asked why conservation easements have to be dedicated prior to application.
Jay Bryan replied that it says, "where they have been dedicated".
Craig Benedict said this deals with subdivisions that may make arrangements and try to get a
credit.
Craufiud Goodwin asked if a developer comes in to discuss options, would one possibility be - a
conservation easement that is not permitted if this remains.
Craig Benedict responded that if it is included in the application, that is in the ownership of the
land being subdivided, you could consider it.
13
Chair Gooding-Ray asked if there is any reason it would not be considered after the application
had been submitted.
Craig Benedict answered if someone could sell his/her conservation rights for "X" dollars and
then wanted to have that included as open space in the subdivision. Each subdivision has to live
on its own. If it is separated out prior to the subdivision, then it probably will not be counted
towards an open space requirement during-the subdivision process.
Chair Gooding-Ray stated that the statement could read "prior to or during the application".
Renee Price expressed concern about the statement on page 075, Section C.5 "permanently
restricted from further subdivision".
Craig Benedict replied that part of the development approval for a subdivision would be a set of
conditions, one of which is that open spaces that are noted in the subdivision shall remain open.
This is written by the people in power at this time. If is ever to be undone, it can be.
Barry Katz asked if the "permanent" could be undone by a change in ordinance or an application.
Craig Benedict said it would be very complicated to undo what has been done. You would need
100% signoff from everyone. There would have to be a subdivision change.
Chair Gooding-Ray asked if the word "man-made" defined in regulation, could be "human-
made"? Craig Benedict said it would be researched.
Renee Price expressed concern about the language on page 076, "and shall be beneficial to stated
open space goals".
Craig Benedict answered that was added to add general criteria. We are looking at the word
"beneficial to stated open space goals" or should it say, "shall be supportive of stated open space
goals. We will look at the wording.
Renee Price noted that on certain words like "overly fragmented" we leave it up to interpretation.
Craufurd Goodwin asked who would be responsible for the "Pedestrian Way Access".
Craig Benedict explained that would be explained in the open space plan for the subdivision. It
may be a relatively unmaintained path or no path.
Renee Price asked would you go back to the language on page 076 that "the maintenance costs
goes to the Homeowners Association."
Craig Benedict agreed. How the open space program functions within the development will be
something this Board will make recommendation on. There will be individuals to monitor this
program when the developer hands this over to the Homeowners Association.
26
14
27
Jay Bryan noted that on page 076, he would like to add view sheds to the category to be an
exception. Also, does anyone have a problem with the Pedestrian Nature Area being 50 foot? Is
that open space?
Craig Benedict responded that 50 foot is being used as access way between two lots to get to the
larger open space.
MOTION was made by Jay Bryan to approve this with the amendments that have been made
and the language changes by Ted Triebel, Section C.S, i.e., the County has the right to reject,
dedication; human made in lieu of manmade; in Section F.1 change the word beneficial, add
view shed. Barry Katz seconded this motion.
VOTE: All ayes.
9. iii Amend Subdivision Regulations Regarding Street Access for Major Subdivisions
Presenter: Karen Lincoln
PURPOSE : To make a recommendation to the BOCC regatYling a proposed amendment to the Orange
Coza:ty Subdivision Regulations, Section IV-B-3-b.
BACKGROUND: Staff, at the May 27, 2003, Quarterly Public Hearing, presented proposed
changes to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to require that major subdivisions
access paved public roads. The proposed amendment was then referred to the Planning Board
for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner August
19, 2003.
Currently, subdivision regulations require that "All subdivisions shall have at least one street
which intersects with or joins a public, municipal street, or a public, State maintained street."
Not all State maintained roads are currently paved.
A major consideration in reviewing subdivision proposals is land suitability. The road
providing access for the subdivision should be considered as part of the suitability of a pazcel
for subdivision since moderate to large developments can have a significant impact on the
public transportation infrastructure. Orange County Subdivision Regulations (Appendix A)
require paved public roads in subdivisions having more than 121ots. To ensure a safe and
coordinated street system, the road providing access to the paved subdivision road should be at
least compazable to the same standard of construction as the subdivision roads. A public road
that provides access to a major subdivision (six or more lots) should conform to current State
standazds for public roads, which includes being paved.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed
Amendment.
Bold Text =Proposed Language
S~il~gl} =Existing Language Deleted
15