Agenda - 01-05-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

044 7 19 . CECIL GRIFFITH stated he lived in the area for 23 years. He questioned the logic for requiring a tvo acre lot size. He noted that e :A'ti_c tank inspections have linite:i the &mount . of territory necessary foe site. If a person has only oel acre of land, he should be p e-ei L ed to build upon that site. I-o asked why it was necessary to change the setback requi nt a because of the two acre minimum lot size. he spoke of the tax rate and questioner'. i•.hy the County did not allow more density to increase the tax beo_y so tz oce xoule be lcreer. He see no lncj is 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 :L)r. the ' record that the vote of the Planni: g 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 nit decrease the tux rate. - 20. HENRY WHITFIELD spoke in opposition of the proposal. Ke reemphasize- . that two acre lots will prohibit water and sewer extensions. Be 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 wale..- 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 the: 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 sere that the people Eu:e here for the convenience of planning instead of planning being here fer the convenience of people. He e Li eeeed concern for those people who want to give a portion of their lend to relatives for a home. He questioned why the setbacks had to be ch-enged. He indicated that while he is concerned with development he is also concerned about the increase in hardship - as a result of lower . den i_tT. 22 . LIZ PETERS stated that what the Planning Board is doing is defeating the pU: pose. 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 peogale in the Coun'by. She fee'e that penalizing people -- for the County . to cone in and set a minimum lot size -- is not right. Slee noted that she just had 90 acres tested and not one acre perked. The extension of water and sewer is essential becai ee-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. 2s . DAVID PARRISH, indicated he has four acres and three children. He s.:'ked if his three childcee. could live on the other three acres he owns. Toe of his children . will not be able to purchase land in Orange County. He is looking out for his children :rut the Commissioners are not looking out for him.