Agenda - 03-10-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7 Collins explained that for each individual property within an area there is a value placed on those development rights which may be on an acreage or per lot basis and the value is assigned by the County working with the individual property owners. The rights are then transferred to another portion of the County. Receiving areas are identified. He noted that this program had been a success program in Montgomery County, Maryland in relation to agricultural preservation. He also noted it had been successful in the Pinelands of New Jersey for environmental protection as well as agriculture preservation. 9. Amend Cluster Development provisions to encourage its use. Collins stated that this would promote the provision of open space in the Rural Buffer. 10. Collect additional data on: a. environmentally significant areas; b. septic system failures; c. techniques to maintain visual quality. Collins indicated a more in-depth study should be done to more accurately determine the situation with septic tank failures. The need for an inventory of environmentally sensitive areas in Orange County has also been indicated. Planning Staff also feels the need for a study to ascertain the visual characteristics of the area and what design standards could be implemented in order to maintain that visual quality. Commissioner Hartwell asked if a mechanism was in place to tax the property owner at a lower tax rate after having sold development rights. Collins responded that the impact aspect would be reviewed as a part of the authorization to prepare an implementation plan. Hartwell indicated that Forsyth County has an implementation plan whereby only the County is allowed to purchase development rights and the property owner is taxed at use value. Chapel Hill Town Council Member, R. D. Smith asked what the regula- tions were governing non-conformities in the Rural Buffer and how many lots would be nonconforming under this regulation. Collins responded that Article 11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance addresses nonconforming lots. He indicated that of the 4500 lots in the Rural Buffer approximately half of them would be nonconforming. However, those lots would only constitute 5 to 10% of the total acreage in the Rural Buffer. Mr. Smith continued asking the consequences of having a nonconforming lot. Collins responded that the nonconforming status stayed with the land until such time as the ordinance is amended to make it conforming or the property owner acquires additional land or takes whatever steps necessary to make the lot conforming.