Minutes - 19900830 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

159 • work. He read a prepared statement endorsing the recommendations. He stated that the recommendation reflects the true consensus of the property owners. They are workable and less complicated than the regulations now in place. These recommendations promote development at affordable prices. He feels the rural boundary will be protected as well as the resources. Also, the rights of the property owner to develop their property have not been denied. MARX O'NEAL, local real estate broker and developer, commended the Committee for their time and effort to understand the issues and to build a consensus among a varied group of individuals. He supports the recommendations because they have taken an approach which creates incentives as opposed to mandates. With the creation of the Rural Buffer, houses in excess of $200,000 are being created. The Committee's proposal creates an opportunity to create housing in the $150,000 category. Through the tighter clustering process, the preservation of green space is greatly enhanced and the areas are larger. Many of the concerns of the smaller property owners are addressed in the recommendations. In summary, he feels the County has a very good framework to move forward and he hopes the governing representatives will approve. DON COLLINS voiced his approval of the Conceptual Guidelines. While he does not approve of alternative septic systems, he does agree with extending water and sewer into the Rural Buffer because there is 60-70% of the land in the RB that will not perk. • HENRY WHITFIELD asked about land that does not perk. He asked who will support the empty land or open space. He asked how many total people they estimate would be put in this 38, 000 acres. He wanted to know if development in this area would increase the tax base or cost the County additional money. In answer to Whitfield's question about land that does not perk, David Stancil indicated that according to soil scientists, 45% of the land does not perk. There are two provisions that enhance this situation. With regard to open space, it could be private, public, deeded to a private conservation organization, etc. It is entirely up to the property owner. The proposal will not alter the number of people placed in the Rural Buffer. The big difference is that two to three times more open space will be preserved. Mr. Whitfield feels the County has put constraints on the use of the property he owns in the Rural Buffer. SCOTT RADWAY, land developer consultant, expressed concern about the open space. He feels that once there is a consensus from a diverse group, the governmental bodies should be very cautious about changing it. He feels that lot averaging may give someone one or two lots and feels it has many more benefits than problems associated with it. He stated that if lot averaging allows someone one or two more lots and is a good design and functions and can provide a variety of lots and a variety of housing which may have different pricing within the same development area that these things are all positives -- not • negatives. As he understands the permitting of two one-acre lots would add about 330 additional units in that option which would represent the consumption of one percent of the land area. He feels this is a minor issue. He referred to Option B and indicated that the