Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-01-1994-X-C
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Agenda - 03-01-94 Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 03-01-1994-X-C
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2015 11:18:03 AM
Creation date
2/9/2015 11:17:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/1/1994
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
X-C
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19940301
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
42 <br /> "highest and best use The use of tax revenues is for <br /> everyone in the county, so it should be used to do this <br /> overall study. <br /> • Capture all streams, develop potential reservoirs - <br /> recreation around lakes. This will produce revenue/tax <br /> base. <br /> • Look at the difference between the development in Orange and <br /> Alamance Counties over the past twenty years. Take advantage <br /> of our weather (beautiful climate) and land - great potential <br /> for development. <br /> • Question: Which watersheds allow for water and sewer? Answer: <br /> It is only permitted in the Transition areas. Water and sewer <br /> is not permitted in clusters. <br /> *• How realistic are the cluster options for developers? We need <br /> County Health involved in private sewer systems because <br /> alternative systems will eventually fail. How do developers <br /> look at this? They are cheaper than tying into public <br /> systems. The larger subdivisions (i.e. 100 lots) may make it <br /> economically feasible. <br /> • There is so much land in watershed areas and you cannot go <br /> below two-acres - so other areas should not take away <br /> development rights. <br /> • It seems like it will get as restrictive in Cane Creek as it <br /> is in University Lake. <br /> #• Currently, people are going outside of the rural buffer (with <br /> a two acre minimum) , so they can develop on one-acre lots. <br /> This creates sprawl and traffic. <br /> #• The so-called rural buffer was created for a particular group <br /> of people. It limits development but is next to two major <br /> interstates. The rural buffer should actually be in rural <br /> areas and the rural buffer, as it is now defined, should allow <br /> for denser development which would protect the rest of the <br /> rural areas from such development. <br /> *• Whose benefit is this rural protection for? These plans <br /> restrict the former or long-term land owners from doing what <br /> they want to do with their land. <br /> • We will always have open space because so much of the land in <br /> non-perkable. <br /> • The rate of Orange County growth is very fast. Will this plan <br /> have to be redone in ten years or are we planning for the <br /> future generations and what they can do with the land? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.