Agenda - 03-01-1994-X-C - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

33 Meeting #3 (Southwest Orange) Orange Grove Community Center Tanuary 27 1994 On January 25, 15 citizens attended the meeting at Orange Grove. This group was almost exclusively longtime residents, with several farmers and large property owners from Bingham, the Efland-Cheeks area, and Cedar Grove Township. Comments at this meeting were similar to those at Walnut Grove. Citizens expressed confusion with the Rural Buffer mandating two-acre lots while higher density (one-acre) was allowed in the more rural areas further removed from the towns. Several citizens thought this density should be reversed. The five-acre lot option was widely-supported as a way to provide lots for family members. The future of farm activities and the need for buffers from open-space development were mentioned. Putting the denser development in urban areas and along a potential mass transit corridor was mentioned as well. Flexibility was recommended for the placement of open-space within OSD's- although several persons expressed worries about alternative wastewater systems. Finally, the idea of different development options for different areas was suggested. Summary The comments received at the community meetings were remarkably similar in scope. At each meeting, the facilitator conducted a meeting evaluation - and asked about the relatively-low level of turnout. Responses to this question were 1) the weather (at Walnut Grove), and 2) the fact that there had been four previous meetings in the past three years soliciting input on the same study. More than one person suggested we "just do it." Along with the preference for two-acre conventional lots and lower open-space development densities, a third consistent theme was heard at all three meetings: that there were distinct, unique areas within rural Orange County with different land constraints, character and thus, the need for one or two different development options than those in other areas. ('This idea of different options in different area was considered by the Rural Character Study Committee in early 1991. The Committee eventually opted for a consistent set of options for all rural areas). There was no opposition stated to either the proposed design guidebook, or the goals, objectives/ action strategies of the Rural Character Study Committee recommendations. Staff met with the RCSC chair on February 15 regarding the compilation of a recommended set of development options, based on the comments received. It is our plan to bring the Planning Board a "hybrid" package of development options that consider the RCSC and staff alternative packages in light of the comments received from citizens in March. as stated in the abstract, this package will attempt to incorporate concepts such as two-acre conventional development, "yield plans", lower-density OSD's, water/sewer compatible development, and impervious surface bonuses in watersheds. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the meetings or comments received (732-8181, 967-9251, 688-7331, 227-2031 - extension 2590).