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
• 45 <br /> re �Sq C <br /> c <br /> U Peter M. Pickens <br /> M4 17f A Cool Spring Drive <br /> lapel Hill , NC 27514 <br /> December 23 , 1992 <br /> /v n rur� ng Board <br /> c nA1C 78 <br /> lanning Board: <br /> On December 14 at the Open Hearing I spoke before you and the <br /> County Commissioners concerning the proposed rezoning of 620 <br /> acres for University Station. One of my main points was that <br /> we can ' t save the rural character of Orange County lust by <br /> protecting farms and preserving open space . The developments <br /> we build in our rural areas should themselves have rural <br /> character with rural , as opposed to urban restrictive <br /> covenants , which would give residents the option , the <br /> alternative, the freedom to live and pursue a country life in <br /> the country. Where else? - Certainly not in town or even in <br /> a village like University Station. <br /> I hope that you will give my comments some serious thought <br /> and not just in relation to University Station but to all <br /> future subdivisions proposed for Orange County. If you take <br /> 620 acres of our countryside , build a village on it with <br /> condos , shops , an inn, office buildings , etc . ; give it urban <br /> restrictive covenants that rule out, for example, any kind of <br /> livestock; supply it with city water and sewer; and zone it <br /> with the potential for incorporation, where is the rural <br /> character of that land going to be? It ' s going to be gone . <br /> long gone , in one big bite. <br /> I just don' t know how you would even consider allowing <br /> residential units in the countryside that have absolutely no <br /> land around them where the residents could at least grow <br /> vegetables and have some inkling of what living in the <br /> country is all about . Condos , apartments , townhouses - they <br /> don ' t belong in the country - that is , if you are serious <br /> about preserving rural character. Now I can see how you <br /> would consider houses with 1 or more acres around them. Now <br /> the homeowner has some land to do something with - a <br /> necessity for any semblance of country living I think you <br /> would agree; however, if his restrictive covenants won' t let <br /> him do anything on that land other than, say, ride the <br /> lawnmower , then he ' s stymied: He might as well be living in <br /> town . Of course, one might argue that a lot of people who <br /> are moving out into our rural areas these days don' t want to <br /> grow vegetables and don' t want to have chickens in their <br /> backyard or perhaps a goat or a cow or a horse , but someday <br /> they might, or if not them, then someone later on like their <br /> children, or children' s children. The land we have left in <br /> rural areas , on which houses are going to be built, has to be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.