Agenda - 05-19-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• 060 10 Charles W. Johnston Mr. Johnston stated he had been living in the same location for 65 years. He indicated he felt that a one acre lot requirement had been a successful and noted that he felt a county-wide sewer system was a need that should be met. He expressed the concern that a landfill had been allowed but the extension of water and sewer was not allowed. Edward S. Johnson Mr. Johnson stated he was a resident of Bingham Township and Chair of the Bingham TAC. He noted that residents of Bingham Township were greatly concerned with leap-frog development into Bingham if development is restricted in the Rural Buffer to a two-acre lot size requirement. He was concerned that leap-frog development was not seen as the problem he felt it to be. He reminded the Commissioners that they represented all of the citizens in the County and not gust Chapel Hill and/or the Rural Buffer zone. He asked that the Planning Staff be directed to study the issue of leap-frog development and inform the citizens of Bingham Township if there Is cause for concern. He also suggested that a way be found to access opinions from the rural townships to determine their concerns and whether or not development is desired. Commissioner Marshall commented that the Board is in the process of updating the Land Use Plan and those things the public has asked for such as poten- tial growth and the feelings of citizens should be done township by town- 'hip. She noted that Mr. Johnson as Chair of Bingham Township Advisory .ouncil should be. Involved in such meetings that take place on the update of the Land Use Plan. She continued that the whole effect of growth throughout the County should be studied and brought together in one document which should be adopted after public hearing. The Rural Buffer is a background study to the problems that have been brought up and the specific amendment for consideration at this time is the request to reduce the minimum lot size requirement in the rural Buffer from two acres to one acre. Henry Whitfield Mr. Whitfield expressed concern and possible confusion with the number of things happening in County planning at the same time and the magnitude of those things. He Indicated he felt sufficient time had not been allowed for an in depth study of the Rural Buffer and the recommendations listed therein. He particularly noted the lack of data available on septic tank failure. He continued that he felt the existing ordinances were sufficient for the provision of orderly progression of urban and municipal development. He indicated he felt a checkerboerd 'orid of two acre lots without public water and sewer would surely emerge and would impact far more on the -natural environment- than one acre lots or cluster lots which would encourage extension of public water and sewer and would promote larger tracts of unused land. He stated that he felt the one acre lots had left sufficient open space and het the Only reason for a two acre minimum lot size requirement was to 'duce density. He questioned the ability of newer residents to know more about stewardship