Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-01-1996 - IX-D
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1996
>
Agenda - 04-01-1996
>
Agenda - 04-01-1996 - IX-D
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/22/2013 1:02:31 PM
Creation date
10/22/2013 1:02:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/1/1996
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
IX-D
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19960401
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
120
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
102 <br /> areas, water/sewer service districts and transit <br /> lines. <br /> Mr. Rafalow responded to be very careful about the <br /> water and sewer service areas. Collins responded <br /> that Stancil had already addressed that issue and <br /> it is to be determined by the Utilities Service <br /> Areas Task Force. Collins commented that the term <br /> sprawl has many definitions. Any development option <br /> that allows a developer or landowner to achieve the <br /> same number of units that is allowed under <br /> conventional development is sprawl. It is simply a <br /> change in development pattern and mixing of some <br /> open space with the sprawl. The impacts are the <br /> same. <br /> Mr. Strayhorn stated that he felt that there is <br /> merit to a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) <br /> program. He noted that there is very little <br /> agricultural land in the transition areas and he <br /> felt this is an option that would allow for more <br /> preservation of more agricultural land. There are <br /> more positives than negatives to such a program if <br /> the receiving areas are those that can provide water <br /> and sewer services. <br /> Rosemond noted that the comments regarding TDR raise <br /> many more questions. She noted that she did not <br /> recall voting on this concept as part of the <br /> package. She would like more discussion on what she <br /> saw as a very large issue. Stancil noted that this <br /> issue was discussed at the October 10, 1995 meeting <br /> and the Board determined to send those comments <br /> forward and not take votes. <br /> Jobsis noted that there would be more opportunities <br /> to discuss some of these issues because the Board <br /> would be reviewing and discussing the design manual. <br /> She asked that the Board stick to this issue of <br /> whether to have more disincentives. <br /> MOTION: Katz moved to include both incentives and <br /> disincentives. Seconded by Reid. <br /> Brown stated that she felt the Board is dealing with <br /> specific incentives and she had concerns with some <br /> of them. One area of concern is conservation areas. <br /> She felt that should be taken out because there is <br /> no definition for conservation areas. Building can <br /> occur in conservation areas. <br /> Brown continued expressing concern with TDRs. That <br /> is a whole separate issue. She also noted a very <br /> serious problem with the undefined water and sewer <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.