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
55 <br /> Bob Hall <br /> 5706. 01d Stony Way <br /> Orange County <br /> Durham, NC 27705 <br /> 489-1931 <br /> December 14, 1995 <br /> Dear Planning Board Member, <br /> I serve on the Orange County Economic Development Commission and the <br /> Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan, and have followed many of the hearings <br /> on development and rural character. Here are a few thoughts on the <br /> Flexible Development Proposal you are reviewing again on December 18 . <br /> I support the overall goal of promoting Open-Space Flexible Developments . <br /> I support requiring conventional subdivision developments to submit an <br /> Open-Space concept plan. I would encourage you to develop higher design <br /> standards than currently in place for conventional subdivision, such as <br /> paved streets with bike lanes, sidewalks, and wider construction setbacks <br /> or tree-lined buffers from major roads . <br /> AFFORDABLE HOMES>> I support the concept of awarding limited density <br /> bonuses -- but only for building affordable housing, using the state's <br /> median family income as the standard to calculate "affordable" rather than <br /> the Triangle's inflated salary scale. This area's median income means an <br /> "affordable house" in Orange County can cost up to $97, 000 . <br /> While I support the Flexible Development concept, I think we must be <br /> cautious about expanding the menu of options for building in the rural <br /> part of the county. We could provide so many options or incentives that we <br /> wind up making it easier and more profitable to build in rural Orange <br /> county, and wind up sucking development away from the urban and transition <br /> areas -- which is exactly the opposite of the goal expressed in the <br /> county's Land Use Element. <br /> We won't really know what we'll get for what we're giving until. we try it, <br /> and I definitely agree that we should review the consequences of these <br /> changes after several plans come forward. But let me offer a couple of <br /> horror stories that I think are avoidable if the plan is adjusted now. <br /> DENsITY BONUSES>> Under the plan as written, I could easily add 100 lots <br /> with $300, 000 homes to my Flexible developments by simply paying a small <br /> amount for conservation easements on 100 acres of wetlands or stream <br /> floodplain or steep slopes scattered across the county's northern edge. <br /> That's not much a benefit for the added density going into rural areas. <br /> That's the way the Density Bonus and Purchase of Development Rights <br /> section now reads -- add 1 unit per 1 acre of "primary conservation area <br /> protected. " I think it should change. Density bonuses are a financial <br /> reward to developers -- real wealth created from public policy -- and they <br /> should be used to get the kind of homes the county needs. Consider <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.