Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
049 <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 collectively 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 identification of criteria for <br /> application of that district in the County. The <br /> amendment also identifies uses that would be <br /> permitted within the Rural Buffer district. The <br /> uses are identical to those currently allowed in. the <br /> Agricultural-Residential zoning district. <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 /> and cost implications for both municipal and county <br /> governments. There was concern about decreasing <br /> land value and the additional expense of acquiring <br /> and developing land which would result in higher <br /> housing costs. A concern was expressed about the <br /> expense related to extending water and sewer service <br /> in emergency situations or as part of a planned <br /> municipal annexation. There were concerns voiced <br /> about decreases in housing densities which would <br />