County Option Urged on Private Parks : Proposal Would Let Developers Meet Parkland Requirement

In an effort to satisfy both developers and environmentalists, the Orange County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday suggested letting developers use private parks to satisfy the requirement that they provide local parkland, so long as they ensure that the parkland will never be developed.

The supervisors ordered the Planning Commission to reevaluate the problem of local parks and report back to the board on Feb. 19. But the supervisors also outlined a possible solution to the quarrel between environmental groups and developers.

Developers getting credit for parkland by building private, rather than public, parks would be required to grant the county an easement on the property.

Parkland Assurance

“This would assure that the parkland, even though it is a private park, would remain as parkland and could not, at a later date, be transitioned into a development site,” Supervisors Bruce Nestande and Thomas F. Riley said in a joint memorandum.

In addition, there would be limits on how much credit would be given for private parks built in a planned community. The exact limits will be determined later.

Developers are required to provide 2.5 acres of land for parks for each 1,000 residents in a new development, or pay fees.

Developers have argued that private parks accessible only to residents of planned communities or members of homeowners’ associations should be considered as meeting the requirement.

Takeover Option

The Planning Commission recommended two months ago that the supervisors require developers to give the county the option to take over such private parks and open them to the public if it so decided in the future.

That suggestion drew the wrath of developers, who contended that the county does not have the money to develop land already offered. Developers also argued that it will be more difficult for them to sell houses when potential buyers are faced with the possibility that someday the public might be allowed to enter parks behind the gates of a private community.

Last week, the Sea and Sage Audubon Society reiterated its position that the county “must have the authority to take over these private parks if or when the necessity arises.”

No Guarantee

Virginia Chester, on behalf of the society’s board, warned that while current homeowners’ associations might be happy with their private parks, there was no guarantee that future homeowners would not sell the parks “or turn them into more houses or commercial centers.”

The suggested solutions of Riley and Nestande would keep the property on the tax rolls because it would not become county land, while ensuring that the parkland would not be developed in the future, county officials said.