Orange County NC Website
Lee: Thing we are forgetting is that there are all kinds of things in here that do hurt. It's just that they don't hurt the <br />person who wants to do a major development. They only hurt the people who live there already, they only hurt the <br />environment. <br />Verla: Do I understand that you only want to use expedited review for 70 %? <br />Dan: Proposal only says that subcommittee thinks expedited review and approval is a good incentive. How it might be <br />applied hasn't been discussed yet. <br />Clint: ivly view from being on the subcommittee is that we (I) were recommending expedited review for five acre lots. <br />Or 33% and Rural Design Guidelines. Haven't been written yet. <br />Verla: Why would you want to give bonus for meeting guidelines? <br />Clint: Guidelines are way beyond what they have to do today. And I can't vote on this (proposal) until they are done. <br />Verla: You're not saying that we couldn't use expedited review for meeting 70% open space? <br />Clint: No. Expedited review for five acre lots is not riding on design guidelines. <br />Elio: Think we are going in wrong direction. We want a document that has something positive to offer. If we take <br />70% can't think of anyone doing that of their own free will unless they love land, but can think of a group that wants to <br />develop that comes up with a cluster and we tell them they can get it approved quickly. So why are we debating this? <br />We want open land. What do we lose by putting in something some person may adopt? Just because we want to <br />debate points we have no control over? We can't control all the things we have discussed. <br />Bob: Only way we would ever lose there is if at some point in time they put mandatory on it. <br />Verla: Can we find an incentive for more than 50% open space? <br />Dan: Think we need to be more explicit, only two things came from subcommittee as being potential options for <br />using expedited review (conventional subdivisions with five acre lots and meeting or exceeding rural design <br />guidelines - whatever they are). Meg has raised a third option and there could be four or five more. If this group <br />feels that expedited review is an incentive it agrees with then we need to work on what list could be. <br />Elio: If something is a good incentive that takes nothing away and is a viable option, see no reason not to promote <br />it. <br />Verla: Does anyone disagree with expedited review being an incentive? <br />Lee: Don't disagree, but want to point out that expedited review is a nice way of saying the public has no say. So <br />we have to be very careful about what we say the public has no say in. <br />Elio: Then I will make this point; we have to give away something if we want open space. It seems that to gain <br />sufficient open space which is what we want to do in terms of rural character, is a tremendous advantage for which <br />we have to pay something. <br />Lee: Think Meg's suggestion was a very good one for the subcommittee to go back and work on. Agree with that <br />more than the notion of five acres as a candidate for expedited review. Thinks expedited review has to be used very <br />judiciously and believes 70% is an example where a way can be found to do this. <br />Dan: Are there any other thoughts to send back to the subcommittee besides 70 %, five acres, and rural design <br />guidelines (whatever they might be)? <br />