Agenda - 04-06-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Planning Board Minutes, March 24, 1981 . Page 2 - : . ... The motion was separated into two parts. The first motion on minor subdivisions passed with Kizer, Gordon, Shanklin, Irvin Wilson, Laszlo, Lunsford in favor and. Cleary opposed. , The second motion on major subdivisions failed. Kizer, Wilson, Irvin, Shanklin and Crawford opposed. 7 -H Gordon expressed concern regarding the cut-off between a major and minor subdivision for the purpose of specifking appropriate road standards. Shanklin suggested a 15 lot cut-off point. Wilson felt that his earlier vote could not stand if the cut-of , . point was now changed': :1)idcussion followed. . .,, ,,,,,. • The Board agreed to 10Se the vote on the subdivision ordinance distinoticlui between:,thinor and major subdivisions and review ead ... _ . , - . major sUbdivisionjOn a case by case basis . : -s: • -. . Agenda Item #4 Discussion of the'RUral: Buffer category. Cleary and Irvin open a discussion on the Rural Buffer by presenting views regarding its relationship to Joint Planning. Crawford reindicated her desire to either see differences in the requirements in the Rur Residential and Rural Buffer areas or merely designate the Join • - Planning Area by means of appropriate notation, eliminating the , category Rural Buffer. Kizer questioned the advantages of the Rural Buffer to the Co un: . , • Polatty responded by citing two factors: 1) the "protection" o: both the Town of Chapel Hill and Ca ro and the County from un desireable development pressures and 2) the usefulness of the Joint Planning process as an e xpression of ■ good faith" by the County towards Chapel Hill expansion concerns. Discussion of this latter point followed• Consideration was given to specifying requirements particular t( the Rural Buffer and the role these requirements would play in facilitating Chapel Hill's infill policy• Shanklin suggested we change the name of the Rural Buffer to the Urban Buffer. Further consideration was given to the description of the Rural Buffer as "never to become urban". Crawford suggested that we spell out all factors regarding the Rural Buffer to Chapel Hill in anticipation of potential later • alligations. Kizer asked if Chapel Hill would consider. using • the extension of their extraterritorial planning jurisdiction as a weapon should they disagree with the Joint. Planning process in the future. Kizer asked Irvin how he perceived Chapel Hill views the Rural Buffer. Irvin responded that Chapel Hill was groping for a balance in incentives and disincentives for infil2