Orange County NC Website
3>> <br />acre proposal. <br />19. CECIL GRIFFITH stated he lived in the area for 23 years. He <br />questioned the logic for requiring a two acre lot size. He noted that <br />septic. tank inspections have limited the amount of territory necessary <br />for a site. If a person has only one acre of land, he should be <br />permitted to build upon that site. He asked why~it was .necessary to <br />change the setback requirements because of the two acre minimum lot size. <br />He spoke of the tax rate and questioned why the County did not allow more <br />density to increase the tax base so taxes. would be lower. He see no <br />logic in the proposal. He questioned who on the Board voted for the two <br />acre minimum lot size and was informed that it was a unanimous vote.. <br />Peter Kramer stated for the record that the vote of the Planning <br />Board on the two acre minimum lot size was a five to five vote. He noted <br />that increased density increases the need for services which will not <br />decrease the tax rate. <br />20. HENRY WFiITFIELD spoke in opposition of the proposal. He reemphasized <br />that two acre lots will prohibit water and sewer extensions. He stated <br />that there are health problems that need to be corrected and there needs <br />to be enough density to pay for the needed services and utilities which <br />cannot be done with two acre lots. The cost of building would be greatly <br />increased and the cost of. property would increase. He noted that one <br />acre lots should be permitted and if the developer wants to run sewer and <br />water lines permit that developer to have one half acre lots. He <br />indicated that growth is coming and the County needs to prepare for it. <br />21. STEPHEN QUINT of the Falls of New Hope area stated that he had no <br />idea that this proposal would be so restrictive. He feels that the Falls <br />of New Hope Association will change their position on this proposal once <br />~~~~ they are informed of the ramifications. Because of the side setbacks he <br />will not be able to expand his home. He criticized changing the <br />regulations and making them retroactive to the existing lots and houses. <br />He stated it seems that the people are here for the convenience of <br />planning instead of planning being here for the convenience of people. He <br />expressed concern for those people who want to give a portion of their <br />land to relatives for a home. He questioned why the setbacks had to be <br />changed. He indicated that while he is concerned with development he is <br />also concerned about the increase in hardship as a result of lower <br />density. <br />22. LIZ PETERS stated that what the Planning Board is doing is defeating <br />the purpose. She expressed concern for maintaining the character of her <br />neighborhood. She lives on one acre and feels it wrong that people who <br />own two acres cannot develop both of those acres. <br />23. HELENS IVEY, Realtor in Chapel Hill, expressed concern for the poor <br />people in the County. She feels that penalizing people -- for the County <br />to come in and set a minimum lot size -- is not right. She noted that <br />she just had 90 acres tested and not one acre perked. The extension of <br />water and sewer is essential because there is a lot of land in the County <br />that will not perk. The price of land will be out of reach for most of <br />the minorities in the County. <br />,, 24. DAVID PARRISH, indicated he has four acres and three children. He <br />asked if his three children could live on the other three acres he owns. <br />Two of his children will not be able to purchase land in Orange County. <br />He is looking out for his children but the Commissioners are not looking <br />