Meeting 031496 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Bob Hall: That's why Lee is saying need to restrict the market. Bob Strayhorn: Or you give incentives to the landowner to encourage him to do some of the things that meet goals. Don't think you could sell anyone intersection for houses. Some of the incentives discussed by Rural Character Study Committee (RCSC) might be useful, i.e., simplifying process so landowners could develop property themselves in a low density manner without selling to a developer, five acre lots for example. Maybe if a person would do development with five acre average lot size, the approval process could be shortened/ simplified. Would be an incentive to eliminate having to go through doing two plans. Bob Hall: Might be worth investment of doing two plans if you get 30 one -acre lots vs six five acre ones. Cost of doing two plans? Lee Rafalow: Steve Yuhasz at a Planning Board meeting estimated it would add about $1,000 to application process. What I heard Bob Strayhorn saying, and it is something we discussed at subcommittee, is an incentive would be to take things off of the public review process (reference to 10 acre lot development). Dan Teichman: Haven't heard anyone come up with equitable incentives to address development at Bob's intersection. Lee Rafalow: Maybe that intersection is unique situation. Don't see how Strayhorns ever going to be compensated for potential value it has (through rezoning) other than for community at -large to buy it. Bob Strayhorn: Do we have agreement that it is important to landowners to have the opportunity for potential (appreciation of land value)... am I hearing you right? Lee Rafalow: Hearing me say I understand your situation. Bob Strayhorn: It's the American way... opportunities. Some we make and some just happen to us. Bob Hall: Lee is saying that it cuts both ways, that the value going up doesn't just come out of thin air (reference to public investments in RTP and UNC to exclusion of other areas). We have avoided the issue of potential. We have been very clear that we want to preserve a person's current property rights, not what they could be if water and sewer were available, but what they are now. That's where we stopped at our agreement; we didn't get into question of who pays for water and sewer. Isn't that a giving? Meg McKean: Maybe we could make some changes pinpointing who the beneficiary is; maybe land that appreciates in value because it is adjacent to open space should go up in property tax rate and the open space land enhancing the value goes down in tax rate. 7