Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
z <br /> 16 <br /> 2. There are places in the proposal that have more regulation than appears to <br /> be necessary. For example, it appears that the Estate Lot Option prohibits <br /> a gazebo outside the building envelope and would prohibit a dock on a lake. <br /> 3. The proposed change to include street right-of-ways in lot size is an <br /> upzoning of up to 8%. If we are attempting to achieve density neutrality <br /> in these changes, why are we giving away higher density? <br /> 4. The Village Option is complicated and needs further discussion and review <br /> by the public. The inclusion of village greens in the calculation of open <br /> space is inconsistent with the rural preservation objectives. Why does the <br /> proposal permit 1 side of the village core to be on a major road; this <br /> encourages exterior rather than interior orientation. I have other <br /> questions, but would prefer that this option get more public education and <br /> opportunity for comment. <br /> I am concerned about the use of density bonuses to encourage open space. <br /> Fitting more units into less space does not make a convincing argument for <br /> either rural character preservations or, for that matter, increased profits for <br /> the developer or landowner. <br /> Lastly, there are a number of related issues that need further development in <br /> this proposal . TDRs are discussed, but the County Catmissioners should ask <br /> the State for authority to use them. Our current tax laws provide lower taxes <br /> for farm uses, but they impose a severe penalty on the farmer when the land is <br /> sold, regardless of its use by the new owner; this is farmer preservation, not <br /> farmland preservation. The County Camissioners should take steps have these <br /> laws changed as well. <br /> I look forward to the outcome of your deliberations. <br /> Sin rel , <br /> ee Rafa ow <br />