Agenda - 02-16-1993 - VII-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

C U1.1 64 Element, which defines the overall priorities for development in Orange County. A copy of the letter Mr. Hall referred to and distributed to the Planning Board is an attachment to these minutes on page Waddell suggested a wording change in the guidelines under OPEN SPACE, #8 , second sentence: However, since many of these facilities may not fully achieve the goals of this study, only 50% of this type of open space should count towards the required open space set- aside. Stancil noted that wording change did not change the context. Jobsis noted that one of her concerns is that if some of the rural strategies are followed, some of the high densities places will be leap frogged right into what are now the rural parts of the County. She felt that this should develop around the already established cities. She noted that the larger lots and costly houses are right outside Chapel Hill and those unable to afford expensive houses and lots are moving farther out into the county. She felt this natural expansion is not going to change in Orange County. She expressed concern that without giving overall consideration to the Comprehensive Plan there will be leap frogging and there will be development in the middle of rural areas that does not fit and totally destroys the rural character. She also expressed concern with losing the basic 1-acre lots . She noted she understood the concern to save open space, but, she felt there could be some 1-acre lots and there definitely is the need for the smaller lots . Boland stated that she lives on a 1-acre lot in a rural area, Cedar Grove, and that there is nothing undesirable about it. Jobsis responded that a lot of the people in the rural areas agree with that statement and they understand the need for the 1-acre lots much better than people in the Chapel Hill area. Burklin responded that the Committee had tried very hard to strike a balance between the densities.