Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
647 <br />Julie Andresen noted that the governing board has the <br />responsibility to protect and make sensible decisions for everyone. They <br />don't have the luxury of guaranteeing everyone the highest and best use of. <br />their property. She urged the Board to adopt the most conservative options,-' <br />that,the Planning Board has recommended. In answer to a question from <br />Commissioner Insko, Ms. Andresen made reference to a study done in Fairfax. <br />County, Virginia, which indicated that land values did not decline as a <br />result of zoning restrictions which kept lots of certain size. <br />Commissioner Willhoit said that he received several calls from <br />the farming community asking him not to approve anything stronger than the <br />state minimum. He indicated that the problem is that the state minimum is <br />a compromise at the state level and does not necessarily provide adequate <br />protection. He agrees that the farmer should be able to sell his land at a <br />reasonable price and feels that the regulations placed on property would <br />not result in a person not being able to sell at a reasonable price. There <br />are two areas in which the County's regulations would be more restrictive <br />than the states and those are (1) the minimum lot size of 1 unit per two <br />acres and (2) the amount that can be used for nonresidential uses. Once a <br />farmer decides to sell his property for retirement, he is no longer a <br />farmer but a developer converting his property to a nonfarm use. He feels <br />the County Commissioners have no.obligation to insure anybody that they can <br />convert their farm or residential property to commercial property. With <br />regards to the minimum lot size, he is not convinced that there are any <br />data which shows that the lot size has an adverse effect on the value of <br />the land. What governs the value of the land is the location. one issue <br />that needs to be addressed is soil suitability. As the County moves <br />forward on the Rural Character strategies for the County, they will <br />encourage clustering which will encourage open space and hopefully make it l <br />conducive to continue farming as a viable enterprize in Orange County. <br />Commissioner Insko noted that one thing they hope to do with the <br />Rural Character Study is to give some density bonuses to encourage <br />preservation of open space. With regard to watershed protection <br />regulations for Cane Creek, the Commissioners will look at these in more <br />detail when the technical study is received. These standards will be <br />interim standards. <br />Commissioner Gordon said to the audience that at the retreat she- <br />talked about impervious-surface-on existing lots and she will talk about <br />this later when considering each watershed. As far as University Lake <br />Watershed, the Board plans to keep the same standards and for Cane Creek <br />they are going to adopt some conservative standards pending the technical <br />study that will be done within the next year. <br />NOTE: <br />Included in the agenda were individual charts for each watershed <br />which summarized the state mandate and proposed zoning standards for key <br />watershed provisions. These provisions include density, residential and <br />non-residential impervious surface ratios (ISR), stream buffers, septic and <br />building setbacks, wastewater disposal provisions and provisions related to <br />sludge application, landfills, hazardous materials and sewer lines. In <br />some cases the charts included two or more options on a particular <br />watershed standard. The option for which the Board indicated a preference <br />at its December 11, 1993 Retreat was indicated by boldface type. The <br />proposed Zoning ordinance provisions, Subdivision, Zoning Atlas and