Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-18-1986
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1986
>
Agenda - 02-18-1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2016 11:26:00 AM
Creation date
9/20/2016 10:34:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/18/1986
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
274
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
06'4 <br /> AN ARGUMENT FOR DENYING APPROVAL OF THE SCOTSWOOD <br /> PLANNED DEVELOPMENT JAN. 1986 <br /> Barry Jacobs <br /> "The concept of the public welfare is broad and <br /> inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as <br /> physical , aesthetic as well as monetary. " William O. Douglas <br /> SUMMARY: Scotswood fails on two counts to meet the burden of <br /> proof necessary to receive approval as a planned development, as <br /> stipulated in Section 8. 2. 2 of the Orange County zoning <br /> ordinance. As proposed, Scotswood violates ordinance sections <br /> 7. 1, 7.4, 71.4.2 and 7. 15. 1. Therefore it fails to meet the <br /> required test that it not violate the county's intent for <br /> physical development as embodied in the land-use plan. <br /> Equally important, Scotswood ' s impact would result in a <br /> failure to maintain the public health, safety and general <br /> welfare, another required test. <br /> Orange County' s ordinance on Planned Development <br /> Districts states in section 7. 1 that "The Planned Development <br /> technique offers distinct advantages to the public , while <br /> affording private property owners greater flexibility in the <br /> development of their land, the opportunity for the application of <br /> new and ingenuous development techniques and more prudent use of <br /> time, money, and effort. The public benefits include more <br /> efficient and effective use of land, more efficient use of <br /> energy, the reduction of the costs of continuing maintenance <br /> responsibilities and a higher average level of amenity in all <br /> types of development." <br /> Scotswood fails to meet these standards, certainly in its <br /> provision of public benefits and even in its usefulness for the <br /> developer: <br /> . . .more efficient and effective use of land.. . <br /> As designed, Scotswood employs the least efficient and <br /> effective use of land, as nearly 88 percent of its 329. 96 acres <br /> will be taken up by detached single-family housing. <br /> Such design necessarily involves more land per unit than <br /> would clustered housing, which is appropriate to an urban <br /> construction such as Scotswood. By choosing standard subdivision <br /> spacing, and an R-2 density, Scotswood will require nearly the <br /> largest possible public and private expenditures to provide <br /> water, sewer, power, telephone and road facilities. Clustering <br /> would reduce these costs. <br /> As Proposed, Scotswood also increases amounts of <br /> impervious surface ( roads, sidewalks, etc . ) and stormwater <br /> runoff, concerns of major import on a property so close to the <br /> Eno River. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.