Minutes - 20060227 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

did not even receive the draft until four days prior to the hearing. She said that it seems obvious that the original intention was to downzone the land in the rural part of the County and this has been a great disservice to the people of this County and to the decision-makers who represent them. She said that this plan relies on the concept of larger lots to meet all the County's comprehensive land use needs and so much time and money has been spent on this very narrow concept. She said that there should be an honest, accurate, and innovative plan for the future and the update should be done the way it was supposed to be done, with the Planning Board, the supervisory boards, the County departments, and the landowners collaborating on the future. Patrick McDonald is the board chair of The Village Project, an Orange County based non-profit that advocates for ecologically sound land use. He usually represents Triangle Transit Authority, but is not doing so in any capacity tonight. He said that the staff report on the County's website reaches highly dubious conclusions about the impacts of density reduction. On page 23, the report states, "the positive aspects of density reduction in the County's rural areas include: reduced potential far increases in vehicle miles traveled and protection of water quality and quantity." He said that reducing density puts more distance between homes and businesses, between homes and schools, homes and worship, etc. When more distance is put between the elements of the communities, citizens are forced to drive more. He said that the Environmental Protection Agency has gone on record in a publication entitled, "Protecting Water Resources with Higher Density Developments" to say that when impervious surface coverage is considered at the watershed level rather than the level of the individual house, higher density development requires less impervious surface than law density, which means less runoff and perhaps better water quality. The problem with only looking at the amount of impervious surface on an individual lot is that it does not count all the extra pavement needs far the automobile. He said that it is difficult to support the staff conclusion that lower density is somehow the key to water quality in Orange County. He said that this process remains flawed because it isolates land use planning from other critical portions of the comprehensive planning process. He urged the Board to move to a process that considers all of the elements together and adopt a plan that encompasses them. Joe Phelps is a native of Orange County. He said that the County does need some changes, but the proposed plan is way too drastic. He said that the Board approved a subdivision in Efland on Frazier Road several years ago, and he pointed out that if they do this type of plan, then it will keep the people that can buy these types of houses from living in Orange County. This subdivision has one-acre lots and the houses range from $150-170,000. He said that five-acre lots would keep the lower and middle-income people from being able to live in Orange County. Ben Lloyd is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He said that in the previous public hearing, four different options with proposed densities were shown. He requested at that time to be provided with the number of acres in each proposal. He asked if this had been done. Craig Benedict said that they are not suggesting any options tonight. He said that he would get this information to Mr. Lloyd. Jay Zardosa said that in 1981, he was in the University Mall and was given the new land use plan. He has not read the text and does not knave if there is any mention of package treatment plants, but he urged the County Commissioners to continue to oppose the establishment of subdivision package treatment plants. He also asked the County Commissioners to consider treating five-acre lot subdivisions as exempt. Commissioner Gordan said that she understands from the presentation that the future land use map is just here for review, but she wonders where it came from. She asked if the Planning Board had anything to do with it and it was answered no.