Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
61 <br /> Tsomething positive for the developer. He <br /> ! applicant with a plan <br /> - expressed concern that an pp P <br /> P <br /> under option 3 would also have to provide a plan <br /> for option 2 . Burklin responded that was not the <br /> intent. The intent is that if an applicant <br /> presents a plan under Option 2 , he is also being <br /> asked, at the concept plan stage, to present a <br /> plan under Option 3 . Waddell and Scott both <br /> agreed that the language/intent is unclear. <br /> Burklin stated that the language could be worked <br /> on to clarify the intent. <br /> Scott continued to express concern that the <br /> Committee wanted to persuade developers to try <br /> other development options but felt the incentive <br /> was not such that would justify the additional <br /> cost to developers/property owners . <br /> Burklin pointed out that it is included in the <br /> text that the complete package be reviewed <br /> annually and a report be presented to the <br /> Planning Board and Board of Commissioners . <br /> This "report card" would include subdivisions <br /> created under all of the options and would <br /> determine whether open space, quality open space <br /> and other goals had been achieved. <br /> Scott responded that until the options had been <br /> in place and tried for a period of time, whether <br /> a year or longer, he felt the present minimum lot <br /> size of 40, 000 square feet should be retained. <br /> Dolly Hunter asked about the next step in the <br /> process and Stancil referred to the Process for <br /> Implementing the Rural Character Strategies as <br /> outlined by Collins. A copy of this process is <br /> an attachment to these minutes on page <br /> Scott emphasized again his concern for the <br /> property owners who would be the losers if the <br /> 40, 000 sq. ft. lots were not retained. The <br /> owners would receive less money for the sale of a <br /> tract because the developer would be so limited <br /> in the number of lots that could be created. <br /> Mr. O'Neal expressed support for the motion made <br /> by Scott. He encouraged the Planning Board to <br /> determine where the growth should go, but, he <br /> stated that affordable lots are not just going to <br /> happen, someone must give "a helping hand" . He <br /> continued that Scott was in line with his concern <br /> regarding the developer passing the cost on to <br /> the buyers. Mr. O'Neal also stated he felt <br /> Orange County is becoming more and more exclusive <br />