Agenda - 11-24-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

acre proposal. 7 19. CECIL GRIFFITH stated he lived in the area for 23 years. He questioned the logic for requiring a two acre lot size. He noted that septic tank inspections have limited the amount of territory for a site. If a person has only one acre of land, e shouldabe permitted to build upon that site. He asked why it was necessary to change the setback requirements because of the two acre minimum lot size. He spoke of the tax rate and questioned why the County did not allow more density to increase the tax base so taxes would be lower. He see no logic in the proposal. He questioned who on the Board voted for the two acre minimum lot size and was informed that it was a unanimous vote. Peter Kramer stated for the record that the vote of the Planning Board on the two acre minimum lot size was a five to five vote. He noted that increased density increases the need for services which will not decrease the tax rate. 20. HENRY WHITFIELD spoke in opposition of the proposal. He reemphasized that two acre lots will prohibit water and sewer extensions. He stated that there are health problems that need to be corrected and there needs to be enough density to pay for the needed services and utilities which cannot be done with two acre lots. The cost of building would be greatly increased and the cost of property would increase. He noted that one acre lots should be permitted and if the developer wants to run sewer and water lines permit that developer to have one half acre lots. He indicated that growth is coming and the County needs to prepare for it. 21. STEPHEN QUINT of the Falls of New Hope area stated that he had no idea that this proposal would be so restrictive. He feels that the Falls of New Hope Association will change their position on this proposal once they are informed of the ramifications. Because of the side setbacks he will not be able to expand his home. He criticized changing the regulations and making them retroactive to the existing lots and houses. He stated it seems that the people are here for the convenience of planning instead of planning being here for the convenience of people. He expressed concern for those people who want to give a portion of their land to relatives for a home. He questioned why the setbacks had to be changed. He indicated that while he is concerned with development he is also concerned about the increase in hardship as a result of lower density. 22. LIZ PETERS stated that what the Planning Board is doing is defeating the purpose. She expressed concern for maintaining the character of her neighborhood. She lives on one acre and feels it wrong that people who own two acres cannot develop both of those acres. 23 . HELENE IVEY, Realtor in Chapel Hill, expressed concern for the poor people in the County. She feels that penalizing people -- for the County to come in and set a minimum lot size -- is not right. She noted that she just had 90 acres tested and not one acre perked. The extension of water and sewer is essential because there is a lot of land in the County that will not perk. The price of land will be out of reach for most of the minorities in the County. 24. DAVID PARRISH, indicated he has four acres and three children. He asked if his three children could live on the other three acres he owns. Two of his children will not be able to purchase land in Orange County. He is looking out for his children but the Commissioners are not looking NNW