Browse
Search
Minutes 061595
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Stoney Creek Work Group
>
Minutes 061595
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 4:46:31 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 11:43:11 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
quality of life. Many Orange County residents work in Durham and <br />Alamance Counties and job opportunities are needed here because <br />residential property taxes cannot pay everything. There is going <br />to be growth here; it should benefit the person who owns property, <br />but should be managed too. Cook felt it was possible to preserve <br />rural character and have growth too. He thought things would <br />continue to change here because of the Research Triangle would keep <br />expanding. <br />Verla Insko asked Strayhorn to clarify his statements on the Rural <br />Character Study approach. He said he liked an approach that <br />encouraged people to go beyond the minimum and rewards them for it. <br />He cited a Rural Character recommendation that would simplify and <br />streamline the process of a landowner selling a few lots to raise <br />needed funds. Holding down costs and frustrations could preclude <br />the owner from selling more than he really needed too and thus help <br />preserve the remainder of the property. Insko asked about the cost <br />of open space and Strayhorn said he felt everyone should pay their <br />share. He said many property owners felt that the longer they held <br />on to their land, the more it was going to cost them. People <br />coming in demand more open space and there is notching left. In <br />defense of newcomers, Lee Rafalow said that many had preserved <br />open space; Strayhorn agreed that Rafalow and some others in the <br />area had done a good job of this. <br />Verla Insko said the group needed to capture the essence of the <br />discussion on incentives as part of its vision. The group <br />summarized the discussion by listing multiple options, simple to <br />understand, and voluntary with density (low ?) as a central theme. <br />Meg McKean said she had two points. First, she mentioned Bob <br />Strayhorn's comments earlier about people being unable to get water <br />and sewer when they needed it. She said she was worried about the <br />opposite, being forced to pay for water and sewer when she didn't <br />need it. She mentioned her experience in another area where she <br />was forced to pay a water and sewer assessment even though it <br />wasn't needed because her family had been conscientious in the care <br />and maintenance of their septic system. Second, she stated her <br />strong support for the concept of TDR although she didn't know how <br />large the buying area needed to be to make it workable. She said <br />she was excited at the opportunity to vote on it last year. Gene <br />Bell said that clarification was needed because the bond vote last <br />year was for purchase of development rights and not a transfer <br />program, there being a substantial difference in the two. McKean <br />asked if the interpretation was that Orange County folks are not <br />ready for this? i <br />Bob Strayhorn said he served on the committee putting the package <br />together and they were looking for ways to purchase development <br />rights on prime farmland. It soon became obvious that purchasing <br />prime farmland was not the goal of many of the backers of the <br />program. He stated that prime farmland does not exist in the <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.