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
0� QjI V <br />opportunities. A copy of that list is included as an attachment to these minutes. The Rural <br />Character designation includes these limited commercial opportunities , but R -1 does not. <br />They felt that the R -1 designation was not necessarily the answer for all of the neighborhoods in <br />this community. <br />Meg McKean stated that the vision includes some commercial while the design statement <br />precludes any commercial development. This is a contradiction which should be addressed. <br />Gene Bell said that the contradiction occurred because the Preliminary Design Subcommittee <br />met prior to the Vision Subcommittee meeting. This information will be reviewed and revised by <br />the Preliminary Design Subcommittee. <br />David Yelton mention that they were talking about expanding the designations to include the <br />possibility that a landowner could sell a crop that was produced on their property. Example he <br />used were having a pond stocked with catfish, operating a bed and breakfast, or selling <br />produce grown on the property. <br />Bob Strayhorn agreed that some of these options would benefit the rural character. There <br />needs to be opportunities for people to generate income within areas designated for open <br />space. <br />Meg McKean asked about activities that are allowed in the R -1 designation. She asked for <br />information about what would be required to allow a wider range of desirable options. <br />Emily Cameron replied that a range of uses might be allowed either through a home occupation <br />permit or a special use permit . To a great extent it is a matter of scale of operation and origin <br />of product. - <br />Verla Insko suggested that the group look at the Vision Statement and decide if it needs to be <br />reworded or accepted in its current form. <br />Dean Zehnder mentioned that there has been very strong opposition to commercial activity by <br />several members of this committee who are not represented tonight. He asked if there was a <br />zoning designation that would allow only the type of small scale commercial that appears to be <br />desirable to the majority of this group? <br />Gene Bell mentioned that the Zoning Ordinance could be amended. <br />Dan Teichman suggested the Vision Statement needs to include comments on the types of <br />home occupations which are allowed. He asked if participants felt that a change to increase or <br />decrease should be suggested? <br />Bob Strayhorn agreed with being careful about what is allowed in the community, however, he <br />stressed the necessity of landowners having choices. He felt that a community store would be <br />a benefit to a rural community. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.