Browse
Search
Draft report - Vision Committee 1995
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Stoney Creek Work Group
>
Draft report - Vision Committee 1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 11:46:03 AM
Creation date
8/1/2018 11:35:54 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
was wide and varied opinion about that. What he has heard people <br />say in that context is, "Don't take away the present rights I have <br />to develop my property;" which is to say, "Don't down zone my <br />property." He said there had been a great deal of discussion over <br />the last three years on perception versus reality. The perception <br />of the property owner is that if he has 100 acres he can go out <br />there and develop 100 units; this is perception and not reality <br />because the Environmental Health Division will determine how many <br />lots can ultimately be developed. He thought there was a real <br />feeling that rights were being taken away through downzoning. He <br />said this issue really needed to be resolved to make progress. He <br />thought it would be invaluable for the subcommittee to address this <br />issue. <br />Meg McKean asked what was the job of the value subcommittee. <br />Elio Soldi said the worst thing was to have a committee that was <br />not clear on its responsibilities. First, he said the subcommittee <br />needed to look at what are the real rights the owner has; namely, <br />not just what was thought, but what was practically available to <br />him. Then, what were the legal effects? The third item would be <br />to address the implications of some of the ideas that have been <br />brought up. <br />Bob Hall suggested tools or mechanisms to help protect property <br />rights or value, i.e., tools to encourage, enhance, protect..., <br />might be added. <br />Elio Soldi asked if the vision could be simply taking all the <br />beautiful things the group had been talking about and boiling them <br />down, avoiding a lot of overlap, and simplifying the language; <br />essentially saying, "This folks, is what we want to pay attention <br />to as we work." Value was a little more demanding because the <br />subcommittee needed to be sure it had a clear definition of a <br />certain idea and a clear relation of what to keep in mind as it <br />worked. <br />Verla Insko asked for volunteers for the three subcommittees. <br />Judd Edeburn, David Yelton, Curtis Bane, and Dean Zehnder agreed to <br />serve on the Vision Subcommittee. Gene Bell was asked to contact <br />Trudy Cuffe and see if she would serve too. <br />Bob Strayhorn, Lee Rafalow, James Bumphus, Bob Hall, Meg McKean, <br />and Elio Soldi agreed to serve on the Value Subcommittee. <br />Renee Price, Bill Bracey, Steve Price, and Michael Warner agreed to <br />serve on the Preliminary Design Subcommittee. Gene Bell was asked <br />to contact Clint Burklin and see if he would serve too. <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.