Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
54 <br /> III. Observation <br /> The elimination of the one-acre minimum lot size has not been <br /> addressed publicly and honestly. There is no clear, specific statement in <br /> the plan, stating that the one-acre minimum is being eliminated, and there <br /> has been no public discussion of this issue. The loss of the one-acre <br /> minimum is too important to just "slip in," because: <br /> 1 ) Abolishing the one-acre minimum is down-zoning without public <br /> awareness and discussion of its ramifications. At the early township <br /> meetings, the public was assured that the one-acre minimum would be <br /> retained. Conversations with citizens have shown that they are not aware <br /> that the one-acre minimum is being eliminated. <br /> 2) All RCS 11/92 and 1/93 development options will increase cost of <br /> lots, with affordable housing already scarce. The current minimum one- <br /> acre lot size is the only economically-feasible choice for most of of rural <br /> Orange County and working-class people. The current standard has created <br /> an average of 1 .9-acre lots. Given the soil in rural Orange, this option <br /> will not be over-used, if allowed to .stay. <br /> 3) A 2-acre minimum will increase the average lot size and make <br /> housing even less affordable for those who can least afford it. Duany <br /> criticized the 2-acre minimum in the Rural Buffer for creating inefficient <br /> suburban/rural sprawl. <br /> The planning board has recoginized this, and recommends keeping the <br /> one-acre minimum. <br /> Proposal: <br /> Maintain 1-acre minimum lot size/100 lots per 100 acre as a <br /> baseline. Any lots given as bonus must build upon this assumption. <br /> IV. Observation: <br /> Jan. 93 RCS proposals penalizes recreational space within open <br /> space. This was caused by an over-reaction to Citizens Against University <br /> Station bias against golf courses. The penalty is unfair because: <br /> 1 . Recreation space is a valuable asset, serving a county-recognized <br /> need, regardless of whether it is specifically within the goals of the <br /> RCS. <br /> 2. All developoments are required to create recreation space or <br /> make payment-in-lieu. Adding open space penalties to this is <br /> unreasonable. It will cause increased lot prices. <br /> 3. Ecologically, recreation is no worse than farming. Recreation <br />