Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-10-1987
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1987
>
Agenda - 03-10-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2016 3:42:42 PM
Creation date
9/27/2016 3:19:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/10/1987
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
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.
/
257
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
145 <br /> RURAL BUFFER STUDY <br /> POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 2 <br /> Issues vs Policies <br /> HODS INQ <br /> The following housing issues were identified in the DATA <br /> & ANALYSIS phase of the study: <br /> (1) Residential development in the Rural Buffer Zone is <br /> occurring on lots larger than currently required by the <br /> zoning ordinance. The average subdivided lot size for <br /> Chapel Hill Township for the last three years is 2.43 <br /> acres. The required two acre minimum lot size may cause <br /> large subdivisions to have fewer lots but will have a <br /> limited effect on overall development activity. <br /> (2) Areas with soils unsuitable for conventional septic tank <br /> usage present an obstacle to development. Alternative • <br /> sanitation systems tend to cost more, require more land <br /> for operation or perform less effectively. <br /> • <br /> (3) Local residents feel that use of the second landfill <br /> site will lead to a decline in the local quality of life <br /> and area property values. <br /> Comparing/contrasting the issues with policies, goals, <br /> objectives, proposals, and standards identified in phase I of <br /> POLICY ANALYSIS yields: <br /> Issue 1 agrees generally with policy 1, i.e. , low <br /> residential densities in the rural areas, but diverges <br /> considerably in terms of minimum lot size (l acre vs 2.43 <br /> acres) . Policy 2 is very general as is its agreement with <br /> Issue 1. Standard 1 is quite specific with regard to Rural <br /> Buffer lot sizes and best addresses Issue 1. <br /> Issue 2 is not addressed. It is questionable whether it <br /> should be addressed under HOUSING. It is more appropriately <br /> addressed under HEALTH & SAFETY. <br /> Issue 3 is not addressed. It is questionable whether it <br /> should be addressed under HOUSING. Quality of life might be <br /> addressed better under HEALTH & SAFETY. Property values <br /> probably fits best under LAND USE. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.