Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
i <br />Judd Edeburn said the group needed to recognize that development is <br />going to take place on some of the tracts that are open now. He <br />would like to see some of the area's current character retained by <br />doing developments in such a way as to preserve vistas and buffers <br />so it doesn't end up looking like some areas in Wake County where <br />there is tract - after -tract of the same type of development. He <br />said he would like for new development in the Stoney Creek basin to <br />retain what residents like about the area while allowing land <br />owners to develop their property. Edeburn emphasized that <br />development should retain the rural character of the area. He <br />closed by stating that his assumption was that some growth for the <br />area was inevitable although this was not his vision for the area. <br />Meg McKean said to, "Preserve as much as possible, cave in as <br />little as possible." Her preference was for no change. Her <br />prediction for future of area was different although she was <br />unhappy to have to predict that. <br />Michael Warner indicated that his preference (wish) was for no <br />change. He agreed with Meg McKean to back off from that as little <br />as possible. Verla Insko asked if no change meant for the area to <br />stay as it is now and Warner replied "yes." He didn't, however, <br />think this was going to happen. <br />Elio Soldi said he 'liked some change because it brought people in <br />and out and promoted variety. He enjoyed living there because his <br />neighbors were not all like him and he had learned from that. He <br />felt that the people who owned the land should be able to own it as <br />long as possible and within reasonable constraints should be able <br />to benefit from that land. He indicated that there were varying <br />perspectives on land ownership; some just viewed it for personal <br />enjoyment while others viewed it as an investment in the future. <br />He said he wanted a plan with a lot of flexibility for many people <br />to be accommodated. His preference was for as little change as <br />possible. Realistically, he hoped the group could come up with a <br />vision that could not be disputed because too many people had been <br />shut out. <br />Michael Warner clarified his previous statement by saying that by <br />"no change," he didn't mean exactly the same people living there. <br />It was more a question of how many people will live there. He <br />agreed there is a diversity of people there now and he welcomes <br />more diversity. His concern was density. For him, the number of <br />housing units is what distinguishes a rural area from a suburban <br />area. He thought the area was still rural, but there was a <br />development threshold separating rural from suburban. His hope was <br />that "ruralness" could be maintained and he viewed this as being <br />done by keeping housing densities low. <br />Steve Price said he wanted to see more public land (lake, ball <br />field, picnic grounds, trails, etc.) He said it could be in the <br />form of a development where a certain amount of land is set aside, <br />01 <br />