Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
10 <br /> Planning Board Member Karen Barrows commented that she is disappointed by the <br /> provisions concerning low and moderate income housing. She felt that it sent the wrong <br /> message and was perhaps even discriminatory to allow developers of such projects to submit <br /> only a conventional plan. <br /> QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS BY CITIZENS <br /> John Roger, a resident of Hideaway Drive, felt that the Flexible Development Plan does <br /> not give an adequate attention to sources of water. He mentioned his concern to <br /> Commissioner Gordon earlier in the year, and she said that staff was studying water resources <br /> in the County to clarify the status of the aquifers that exist in the area. He noted, in particular, <br /> that the proposal does not give enough attention to water resources. Attention is given to how <br /> to dispose of the water after it is used but not to where the water is going to come from. He is <br /> concerned that cluster development will result in well failures. <br /> Jay Zaragoza spoke against the portion of the proposal ( which would allow multiple <br /> homes to be connected to a community sewage disposal system. He stated that the history of <br /> these systems is one of failure, and often necessitates bailout by the County. He spoke in <br /> support of the overall plan but asked that this portion be eliminated. <br /> Nick Tennyson, Executive Vice-President of the Home Builders Association of Durham- <br /> Orange County, stated that he was impressed with the positive tone of the document. He <br /> asked that the County keep in mind that the complexity of rules could result in higher costs. He <br /> also asked for assurance that the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Staff will stay <br /> in communication with other county departments, especially Environmental Health, who <br /> oversee different aspects of the regulation process. <br /> Bob Strayhorn stated that he was 100% in favor of the proposal. He commended staff <br /> on the good work that they did. He felt that the rural landowners will accept the plan, and it <br /> would encourage protection of open space as well as affordable homes. <br /> John Hartwell, spoke in support of the plan. He likes the voluntary nature. He <br /> commended the Commissioners on their leadership in this matter. <br /> Vic Knight commended the staff people and volunteers who worked on the plan. He <br /> indicated that that he supports 80% of the plan. He would like to see more clarification on the <br /> issues. He commented that much of what is currently required by the Subdivision Ordinance is <br /> static. He approves of the flexible development concept but feels that there are still many <br /> unresolved issues. Some of the open space may be static as are the number of lots that are <br /> going to come out of that. He mentioned that there are bonuses, other than density bonuses, <br /> that developers are willing to use, and for which the public is willing to pay. He felt that allowing <br /> a developer to present only a flexible development plan was discriminatory. He was disturbed <br /> by the statement that Flexible Development pertains everywhere in the County except the Rural <br /> Buffer Zoning District. <br /> Mary Willis mentioned that the Planning Board uses the Concept Plan to identify issues <br />