Browse
Search
Meeting 121495
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Stoney Creek Work Group
>
Meeting 121495
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 5:18:46 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 11:42:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
M M <br />There was discussion about using incentives to encourage the creation of a park in this area. <br />Dan Teichman said the subcommittee had identified resource areas, proposed scenic roads, <br />existing farmlands, and existing neighborhoods. They could then list other categories that they <br />thought would be important to include, such as a park site. <br />Clint Burklin asked that the Vision subcommittee add a park to their vision for this area. <br />Bob Strayhorn suggested including a vision of a park but having others decide exactly where it <br />would be located. <br />Dean Zehnder asked if there was sufficient money in the County's payment -in -lieu fund to <br />create a park or would there need to be a sale of bonds. <br />Gene Bell said that there was $4,000 or $5,000 in the fund. There would need to be a bond. <br />In a discussion about where to put a park it was suggested that it could be placed near the <br />railroad tracks if it was properly protected with fencing. <br />David Yelton stated that this is a vision of what might happen in this area with the proper <br />incentives. It could take place if this area remained R -1, although it might be very difficult <br />without the incentives. <br />Verla Insko mentioned that it is possible for an implementation strategy to include rezoning <br />suggestions <br />Gene Bell mentioned that the Values Subcommittee has dealt with the current zoning and the <br />rights implied by that zoning. Existing development patterns in much of the lower intensity land <br />uses (yellow area on the map) are clearly established with lot sizes between 3 and 10 acres. <br />Bob Strayhorn's farm and several of the properties that were a part of the University Station <br />proposal are the main areas that could still be impacted by the smaller lot options. <br />Bob Strayhorn mentioned the possibility of using transfer of development rights. The <br />landowners in the yellow areas of the map need to have the option of using the transfer of <br />development rights if it becomes available. <br />Clint Burklin hoped to have an equal amount of "receiving areas " for the density if transfer of <br />development rights were implemented. This could be an option in the incentive program. We <br />need to make sure that there is an area available to receive the development rights from the <br />landowner who wants to sell. <br />Gene Bell stated that the purchase of development rights is a possible future option, however, <br />the transfer of development rights would have to be approved by the State Legislature. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.