Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DP A Yr. <br /> 111 <br /> DRAFT PBM 12-17-86 PAGE 10 <br /> Planning Agreement and the lack of response from the <br /> applicant to the requests from staff for revisions to <br /> the Preliminary Plan dating back to November 11. <br /> Yuhasz continued that there is insufficient justifica- <br /> tion for some of the Chapel Hill recommendations, <br /> particularly the reference to the widening of Rogers <br /> Road and future consideration for adjoining properties <br /> development. <br /> Collins responded that he felt the concerns expressed <br /> by Chapel Hill are legitimate concerns. He continued <br /> noting that the developer had not responded and <br /> addressed the concerns of Orange County Planning <br /> Staff. With the lack of response. Staff would have <br /> recommended denial even if the project were not in the <br /> Joint Planning Area. <br /> VOTE: 9 in favor. <br /> 3 opposed (Taylor. Walters. Yuhasz) . <br /> AGENDA ITEM #7: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 11-24-86 <br /> a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments <br /> Marvin Collins. Planning Director, stated that he <br /> would be presenting the amendments concerning the <br /> rural buffer and indicated that he would be <br /> presenting them altogether rather than as separate <br /> items. <br /> The first proposal for amending the Zoning Ordinance <br /> was the establishment of a definition of the Rural <br /> Buffer district and also identification of criteria <br /> for application of that district in the County. <br /> That amendment also identifies all uses that would <br /> be permitted within the Rural Buffer district. <br /> Those uses are identical to those currently allowed <br /> in the Agricultural-Residential zoning districts. <br /> No comments were received at the public hearing <br /> regarding the wording on the 'Intent" statement or <br /> the "Application Criteria". Concerns were voiced by <br /> many people regarding the two-acre minimum lot size <br /> requirement. Concerns were also expressed about <br /> several basic issues which include property rights, <br /> affordable housing. various environmental impacts, <br /> cost implications for both municipal and county <br /> governments if *the proposed rural buffer concept is <br /> implemented. There was concern about decreasing <br /> land value. the additional expense of acquiring and <br /> developing land which limitation on public water <br /> and sewer extensions within the Rural Buffer area. <br />