Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br />1 property owners. They are workable and less complicated than the <br />2 regulations now in place. These recommendations promote development <br />3 at affordable prices. He feels the rural boundary will be protected <br />4 as well as the resources. Also, the rights of the property owner to <br />5 develop their property have not been denied. <br />6 MARK O'NEAL, local real estate broker and developer, commended <br />7 the Committee for their time and effort to understand the issues and <br />8 to build a consensus among a varied group of individuals. He supports <br />9 the recommendations because they have taken an approach which creates <br />10 incentives as opposed to mandates. With the creation of the Rural <br />11 Buffer, houses in excess of $200,000 are being created. The <br />12 Committee's proposal creates an opportunity to create housing in the <br />13 $150,000 category. Through the tighter clustering process, the <br />14 preservation of green space is greatly enhanced and the areas are <br />15 larger. Many of the concerns of the smaller property owners are <br />16 addressed in the recommendations. In summary, he feels the County has <br />17 a very good framework to move forward and he hopes the governing <br />18 representatives will approve. <br />19 DON COLLINS voiced his approval of the Conceptual Guidelines. <br />20 While he does not approve of alternative septic systems, he does agree <br />21 with extending water and sewer into the Rural Buffer because there is <br />22 60 -70% of the land in the RB that will not perk. <br />23 HENRY WHITFIELD asked about land that does not perk. He asked <br />24 who will support the empty land or open space. He asked how many <br />'�25 total people they estimate would be put in this 38,000 acres. He <br />-_- 26 wanted to know if development in this area would increase the tax base <br />27 or.cost the County additional money. <br />28 In answer to Whitfield's question about land that does not perk, <br />29 David Stancil indicated that according to soil scientists, 45% of the <br />30 land does not perk. There are two provisions that enhance this <br />31 situation. With regard to open space, it could be private, public, <br />32 deeded to a private conservation organization, etc. It is entirely up <br />33 to the property owner. The proposal will not alter the number of <br />34 people placed in the Rural Buffer. The big difference is that two to <br />35 three times more open space will be preserved. <br />36 Mr. Whitfield feels the County has put constraints on the use of <br />37 the property he owns in the Rural Buffer. <br />38 SCOTT RADWAY, land developer consultant, expressed concern about <br />39 the open space. He feels that once there is a consensus from a <br />40 diverse group, the governmental bodies should be very cautious about <br />41 changing it. He feels that lot averaging may give someone one or two <br />42 lots and feels it has many more benefits-than problems associated with <br />43 it. He stated that if lot averaging allows someone one or two more <br />44 lots and is a good design and.functions and can provide a variety of <br />45 lots and a variety of housing which may have different pricing within <br />46 the same development area that these things are all positives -- not <br />47 negatives. As he understands the permitting of two one -acre lots <br />48 would add about 330 additional units in that option which would <br />49 represent the consumption of one percent of the land area. He feels <br />50 this is a minor issue. He referred to Option B and indicated that the <br />)51 process of approving a plan is important and input is valuable. <br />52 JEF stated that the society of the County is changing. He feels <br />