Browse
Search
Meeting 031496
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Stoney Creek Work Group
>
Meeting 031496
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 4:56:11 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 11:37:49 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
what this will mean. <br />Lee Rafalow: So you're saying let's make explicit what I've had as <br />a working assumption all along; that we can make whatever changes <br />we want to FDO and propose those as our version of FDO. <br />Bob Strayhorn: In the Stoney Creek area? <br />Lee Rafalow: Yes. <br />Bob Strayhorn: That would be one way to do it. <br />Dan Teichman: No problems with that, but feel that FDO will be <br />approved by BOCC and it (FDO) will be common base from which <br />anything we do will be additive. Don't believe PB and BOCC will <br />say Stoney Creek is different from rest of county for these items, <br />don't think they will make a special distinction. <br />Bob Hall: PB said they would respect small area plan's sense of <br />what is appropriate. <br />Dan Teichman: Hope so, but afraid they will say respect your input <br />added to this, but not in replacement of it. <br />Bob Strayhorn: If they (BOCC) accept what we've sent, it will be <br />the first time (RCSC is example of past efforts). <br />David Yelton: Make sure we encourage /promote flexibility concepts <br />of plan to encourage open space (hopefully) in future developments. <br />Dan Teichman: As group, need to have idea that what we propose will <br />be equivalent of this for the county, but only for Stoney Creek; <br />fear county plan will govern with Stoney Creek being additive. <br />Verla Insko: Question to Bob Strayhorn re FDO. <br />Bob Strayhorn: Have no problems with FDO in general. Not <br />acceptable to him though to increase density along certain parts of <br />the highway and this may be a change to FDO he would support. <br />Without water and sewer (which may come to area at some future <br />date) would want to see area stay way it is. Another change might <br />be that it would be OK for development rights to go out of the <br />Stoney Creek area, but not bring them in from the outside. <br />Dan Teichman: Does it make sense what he is asking subcommittee to <br />address, i.e., the difference between whether things in FDO should <br />or should not apply in area and changing the numbers therein? <br />Lee Rafalow: Think we are talking about a procedural difference. <br />Need to make sure we get the basic question on the table for the PB <br />and BOCC (reference to Renee showing up at last subcommittee <br />meeting and expressing surprise that group could propose something <br />Im <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.