Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-27-2006-7b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2006
>
Agenda - 06-27-2006
>
Agenda - 06-27-2006-7b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2008 6:00:34 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 9:37:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/27/2006
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
7b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20060627
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
6 <br />84 Vicki Bott: Findings: In Orange County, the supply of sending areas greatly exceeds <br />85 the receiving areas. Is that good or bad? If a program works, it may be a constraint <br />86 later. It takes a while to get a program moving. The price range of properties is <br />87 significant throughout the County. Either the County can set credit values ar try to <br />88 equalize values. This may make it more feasible in the open market, <br />89 <br />90 Scott Radway: (regarding Table 1 on pg. 3 of handout) If demand is 'dwelling units', it <br />91 needs to be specified an the table. The figures need to be better described and the <br />92 units need clarification. <br />9.3 <br />94 Ed Holland: Perhaps there should be an additional line for dwelling units, <br />95 <br />96 Mike Gering: It needs to specify units or acres. <br />97 <br />98 Scott Lane: There is a conversion involved. <br />99 <br />100 Vicki Batt: We have backed out any developed acreage. <br />101 <br />102 Geoff Gledhill: I don't feel that the receiving area acreage is pertinent. <br />]03 <br />104 Scott Radway: Is the demand in receiving areas derived from market demand? <br />105 <br />106 Vicki Bott: It was based on development potential. <br />107 <br />108 Scott Radway: You really can't establish the potential without a different type of <br />109 analysis,. <br />110 <br />111 Vicki Bott: We can reflect this as receiving area capacity, A matrix might be more <br />112 explanatory. <br />113 <br />114 Ed Holland: It seems as though you're referring to net supply; supply less demand, not <br />115 divided by. <br />116 <br />117 Glenn Bowles: The Lands Legacy programs uses $3,000 - 6,000 per acre for <br />118 conservation. Are we getting a good deal? <br />119 <br />120 Vicki Bott: (Table 3, p. 4) This reflects that with an easement, the land value is reduced <br />121 by 7Q% in value in urban areas, and 50% in non-urban areas. <br />122 <br />123 Hervey McIver: There is a difference between buying development rights and <br />124 conservation easements in terms of value. <br />125 <br />126 Scott Lane: That needs to be specified, <br />127 <br />128 Vicki Bott: This is more restrictive, We focused an conservation easements only. <br />129 There is a big range of uses with conservation easements, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.