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
52 <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 ccnplicated 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 preservation 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 Commissioners should ask <br /> the State for authority to use then. 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 Commissioners 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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.