Browse
Search
Minutes - 19940630
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Minutes - 19940630
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2016 8:57:47 AM
Creation date
4/8/2010 2:55:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/30/1994
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 06-30-1994 - Agenda
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1990's\1994\Agenda - 06-30-94 Public Hearing
Agenda - 06-30-1994 - C-1
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1990's\1994\Agenda - 06-30-94 Public Hearing
Agenda - 06-30-1994 - C-2
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1990's\1994\Agenda - 06-30-94 Public Hearing
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3 <br /> not approve the two acre lot minimum. He mentioned that his experience with <br /> owning a non-conforming lot on Lake Orange was that it was extremely difficult <br /> to expand on that type of lot. He asked that consideration be given to the land <br /> owners whose lots would be non-conforming if the two acre minimum was approved. <br /> He indicated that the tax base would be seriously compromised if the two acre lot <br /> was approved. <br /> REVEREND JOSEPH S. HOCUTT, JR., a resident of Governor Burke Road, <br /> indicated that he has 9 and 6/10 acres of land which has been subdivided. His <br /> son has been attempting to put a trailer on this land. He put in a driveway, <br /> cleaned off the land and had it tested for its ability to perk. He has now been <br /> told by the Planning Department that he could not build unless his grandmother <br /> and aunt moved off of the land. He indicated that his son and daughter-in-law <br /> have 4 children and they both work. They are being hurt by not being able to <br /> build on this land. He stated that he has worked hard to buy and maintain his <br /> land. He hopes that his son will be able to build a home for his family. He <br /> asked that the two acre minimum be rejected. <br /> JERRY GAMBILL, a real estate appraiser, broker and developer, with a <br /> company in Durham spoke in opposition to the 2 acre lot minimum. His company has <br /> developed over 400 acres of land in Durham and Orange County for single family <br /> subdivisions, most of which use wells and septic tanks. They have also brokered <br /> over 1000 acres of land in the two counties over the last 5 years. He asked that <br /> the Commissioners carefully consider the reality of the Planning Department's <br /> statement that "average lot size over the last several years has been two acres." <br /> Many of those lots were much larger than two acres and many were only one acre. <br /> He has been involved in projects which have lot sizes ranging from one and one- <br /> half acre lots to a maximum of 11 acre lots in the same development. Changing <br /> the lot sizes will adversely affect the investment made by land owners in Orange <br /> County. He stated that the soils in the county, along with the slope <br /> requirements, are such that they often dictate that lot sizes will be one, one <br /> and one/half, two and in some instances up to 10 acres. This would also impact <br /> on the ability of low income residents to purchase land. He requested that the <br /> Commissioners not change the system. <br /> ED HOLLOWAY, a land owner on the Orange/Durham border, spoke in opposition <br /> to the proposed two acre lot minimum. He indicated that they have spent months, <br /> and considerable money, pursuing a development plan. The requirements for his <br /> land are currently more restrictive than the competing land which is in Durham <br /> County. He stated that this proposal seems to him to be arbitrary and without <br /> economic or environmental value. He asked that the two acre minimum be rejected <br /> as an option. <br /> SCOTT BARBER, an Orange County resident, indicated that taking care of the <br /> land and avoiding urban sprawl seem to be the important issues here. He asked <br /> the Commissioners to establish requirements that stop "cookie cutter" <br /> development. Open space, which includes ecologically sensitive areas and farming <br /> areas, must be guaranteed for future generations. <br /> ARTHUR COGSWELL, a representative of the University Station project, <br /> indicated that they were encouraged by the Planning Department to develop the <br /> site along the lines of the current plan, with the adjoining transition zone <br /> extended so that municipal services could be extended to the site. The staff and <br /> Planning Board endorsed that plan. Over time that plan was modified as a result <br /> of the work of the Rural Character Study Committee. One change they instituted <br /> was to option for additional land so that the golf course could be located along <br /> I-85 rather than on Stony Creek. He stated that this site is not rural. It lies <br /> between I-85 and I-40. It has a railroad and a Duke Power easement running <br /> through it and is bounded by another railroad. It has been identified for some <br /> time as being a candidate site for development. He strongly opposes the two acre <br /> lot minimum. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.