Minutes - 20060227 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

based on the current minimum lot size allowed and do not reflect what is actually occurring in the County. She said that the many factors that affect lot size and density need to be acknowledged. Subdivisions approved during the past ten years have resulted in lots that are larger and fewer than the Planning staff indicates in the build out figures for a number of reasons, including restrictions, private road standards, acreage and rights-of-way, impervious surface ratios in watersheds, etc. She said that current subdivision regulations make subdivision very expensive with survey, septic approval, engineering approval, attorney fees, landscaping documentation, recreation fees, and the high cost of building road access to required standards. For these reasons, she said that more and more landowners create subdivisions with ten-acre lot size minimums with restricted covenants not allowing smaller lots. These subdivisions are exempt from County regulations and the County has used this exemption as an excuse to ignore these lots and their calculations. There has been a decrease in the number of major, minor, and exempt subdivisions since 2002. She said that the charts should show accurately what is happening on the ground and it would show that they would meet the targeted densities if they did nothing. She said that the land use element process is incomplete and she urged the County Commissioners to cancel the May 22"d public hearing and require that this process be done in a full, clear, accurate, and ethical way. Allan Parnell said that he is a long-time resident and a topographer. Much of his work is with civil rights and housing attorneys. He said that regulations for minimum lot size have given rise to the rapid escalation of home values in the communities. He said that he and his wife own several platted lots smaller than five acres in northern Orange County, and the proposed exclusionary zoning will result in significant increases in the value of these properties by reducing the supply of similar lots. He said that the proposed exclusionary zoning is bad public policy and unnecessary and will harm the community. He said that exclusionary zoning exists where local zoning regulations limit the market by requiring certain house sizes prohibiting multi- family housing, or by having large lot sizes. He said that if the goal of proposed land use changes are to limit sprawl, it would in fact have the opposite effect. He said that the five acre minimum will drive the already high property values up, pushing many out further to find affordable housing and thus increasing sprawl. He said that this proposal with the lot sizes would certainly limit who could live in Orange County. He said that he has described this proposed zoning to civil rights and housing attorneys across the country, and they are amazed that a community as progressive as Orange County would be seriously considering such action. He referred to the Smart Growth of America position on inclusionary zoning. Jean Earnhardt lives in Chapel Hill Township. She spoke on behalf of friends that live in the rural townships. She said that the land use update affects the people in the rural areas of the County more than any other citizens, and yet these were the least represented and the least able to participate in the updating process. She said that the landowners and the potential homeowners who cannot afford the five-acre tracts have not had their concerns addressed. She said that the entities that represent these citizens have not been included as they should be. For example, the CPLUC was not representative of the entire County and the ideas considered now were not that committee's ideas. There was no representation for Eno or Little River Townships. Of the 15-committee members, 10 were from Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Carrboro. Only 5 members were from rural townships and 3 of thane were from Bingham. Cheeks and Cedar Grove were represented by a County Commissioner and a Planning Board member. She said that at the last meeting of that committee, the Planning staff presented their own ideas and these are the ones that are being considered. She said that the outreach meetings included an hour-long presentation and did not encourage give and take talk. She said that the Planning Board has been restricted from any meaningful coordination of this process, though it has the responsibility to propose, direct, and advise the County Commissioners an the comprehensive land use plan. She said that, as of this date, the Planning Board has not approved any part of the presentations or the draft and the members