Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
committee and asked for additional members to enhance creativity. <br />Dan Teichman asked about the status of the Flexible Development <br />proposal. Bell indicated that the proposal was currently in the <br />Planning Board review stage. Teichman asked if there was anything <br />the Implementation Subcommittee could do to influence the review of <br />Flexible Development. Bell indicated that Flexible Development was <br />on a "separate track" and with the exception of the Rural Buffer <br />area would be applicable throughout County planning jurisdiction. <br />Teichman asked if a proposal coming out of this group <br />(Implementation) would be "tacked" on to Flexible Development. <br />Bell stated that what came out of the Implementation Subcommittee <br />would be specific to the Stoney Creek area. Lee Rafalow added that <br />a number of people on the Planning Board have said that they would <br />look very favorably on suggestions that either expanded upon or <br />limited Flexible Development options for areas in which small area <br />plans were being prepared and that right now, Stoney Creek was the <br />only such area. <br />Elio Soldi added if we could not propose something now that finds <br />some resonance among the people currently developing property at <br />Old N.C. 10 and New Hope Church Road, we will have lost a large <br />part of what is considered scenic in the area. He said if it <br />wasn't possible for us to propose options with incentives that a <br />developer would consider seriously, then we would not be able to <br />achieve preservation of what we still have in the area. He said he <br />would opt for sorting out options on which we agree and refining <br />them. <br />A short discussion ensued on affordable housing and Verla Insko <br />stated that while it was highly desirable, the key premises <br />underlying the work of the Planning Group were to protect rural <br />character and protect landowners' rights. She asked if there was <br />agreement on the three colors on the map, not necessarily where <br />they were located, but that the approach was logical and that the <br />differences in color represented some difference in density or <br />buildout. Lee Rafalow said the colors meant a difference in <br />density potential. Bob Strayhorn added the colors represented a <br />desired intent. David Yelton said the map represented how the area <br />"might" look if certain design elements and incentives came into <br />play. He said this might be a good way to visualize the area, but <br />if all Flexible Development options were available it was difficult <br />to say how the area might ultimately develop. <br />Judd Edeburn mentioned one problem seemed to be mingling <br />implementation with philosophy and concepts and whether it was <br />incentives or disincentives being discussed, it was implementation; <br />but when talking about whether and area ought to be "rust" or <br />"green" that's not implementation, is something different. We <br />haven't given the subcommittee enough detail of what we all really <br />want for the area. Perhaps large group needs to "hash it out a <br />3 <br />