Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Verla: So there are some incentives that would at least make you look at these options? <br />Curtis: Sure. <br />Verla: To Lee. Are you getting enough rural character preservation to be supportive of this proposal that we take to the <br />Planning, Board? <br />Lee: We're right on the edge of where I can support it, right on the edge. Feel like we've gone so far to add density to <br />this area that what we're going to preserve is stuff that can't be built on anyway. I'm not sure what we're achieving. As <br />hard as it was for everyone involved, I hated the process of fighting about University Station. Once we come up with a <br />proposal here it's going to disarm us in a way that's going to make it very hard for him and his constituents to get what <br />thev want and will make it hard for Curtis and Bob and other landowners to get things bevond what this says. So in a <br />sense, this is a disarmament we're doing here (for both sides) and he is at the point where he might rather fight on a <br />case -by -case basis. <br />Verla: If fighting is the alternative to the negotiated settlement, maybe we should start the conversation by saying we <br />believe we can do better than what we have now. <br />Elio: Thinks Verla has hit on the crucial point. There may be things in proposal that we may find we wouldn't do, but <br />nothing forces us to do them. All we are looking at is can we add enough incentives so that when we leave here there is <br />one aspect of this proposal that we feel comfortable with, and feel that in this case have to agree somewhat with Lee. <br />He's not saying you can't do this. He's saying perhaps you should consider it. We've gone so many miles now; I feel <br />we've achieved something. There are options in document that I would deliberately consider for my land. Think there <br />options that might help Curtis. Not sure that we can we can address some of the issues Bob has raised regarding the <br />potential value of land. We've taken away nothing. At this point would say let's see if we can add something else for <br />those people that want conservation. We may not agree, but let's try to come up with something we can all support. <br />This document may serve as an incentive for another small group to work on. Feel that we've gone a long way and if <br />we recognize that we've gone a long way. Otherwise, we're going to end up splitting hairs and going to part and not <br />achieve much. <br />Dan: We've agreed up to point five on the words in here from the subcommittee. We said there ought to be a third <br />bullet under item five. Now we're on item six. Reference back to page four, section two of the FDO regarding active <br />and passive recreation lands and rights -of -way in open space determination. Also examples of active recreational lands. <br />Bob: Think the fact that we're losing all lands as method of determining buildable, these two things should equal out. <br />Dan:_ So you're suggesting that item six basically struck? <br />Bob: Yes. <br />Verla: And how I read your objection is that it is taking away something that has been given in the FDO. <br />Lee: Don't think you can take away something that has not yet been passed. Originally said we were going to preserve <br />the value of the land. Now there are people who think that statement means we are going to preserve every possible <br />opportunity that land might produce; I object to that. <br />Bob: To have a future subdivision like I might want, probably going to have to build it himself. People that have the <br />land tend to view things a little differently. Need to try to put yourself in the other person's shoes; thinks it will enhance <br />understanding. <br />Dan: This proposal came from subcommittee whether they agreed or disagreed. The group needs to come to some <br />consensus that it needs to go back because it is not acceptable, it needs to be struck because it is not acceptable, or it <br />needs to be accepted as it is. <br />0 <br />