Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
40 <br /> • Should look at issues such as transfer of development rights <br /> to help landowners keep the rural nature of their farms. <br /> • Question: Where will you allow density? Answer: Near towns. <br /> Do not allow urban in rural areas. <br /> *• Should have tax breaks for agricultural uses. Make it <br /> affordable for rural residents to keep their land. <br /> *• It seems like the planning staff alternative has less open <br /> space overall. <br /> *• The RCSC option allows for higher density bonuses. <br /> #• The group has trouble choosing one option over the other, but <br /> would rather pick out the positive and negative parts of each <br /> plan. <br /> #• There is more room to be creative in balancing density and <br /> development. Would like less density than is in these <br /> proposals. <br /> • Need to address development by landowners who are not original <br /> rural landowners. How to keep these original rural landowners <br /> in control of their land? Financial incentives are necessary. <br /> *• Those of us who have been here a long time feel differently <br /> about balancing future growth than those who have moved here <br /> more recently. <br /> • Discussed what was going to happen next. A group of people <br /> are trying to address some issues not necessarily covered by <br /> the RCSC. This came out of the John DeGrove conference and <br /> covers the planning of county-wide, broader issues and <br /> conflicts. Need a vision for twenty years later. What comes <br /> after RCSC? A furthering of RCSC. <br /> • What do farmers need to protect agriculture and continue <br /> farming? Young farmers are interested in a re-activation of <br /> the Farm Bureau. It is hard to farm and make a living in the <br /> Triangle. All the land is not prime agricultural land. We <br /> have to Compete with other areas. Tobacco farmers, (our <br /> biggest $) , are in trouble. Try to find some industry in - <br /> need employment - work part-time. <br /> Summary (group recommendations) None recorded, but as part of <br /> report to combined groups the following were identified: <br /> • Clusters may be too dense for a rural area - and water/sewer <br /> provision is a concern. <br /> • Five-acre lots are a good idea - provide incentives. <br /> • One-acre lots without open space a bad idea - but allow five <br /> 1-acre lots for lot of record as in RCSC. <br /> • Cannot select one plan over the other. <br />