Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
42 <br />Preston made reference to the fiscal analysis and said that this subdivision is definitely not paying its own <br />way. She said that we still have not addressed having all of these types of developments with wells. She <br />is not in favor of this development because it is essentially subsidized affordable housing. <br />MOTION: Tadd moved to table the vote on this item. <br />There was a motion already on the floor, so this was made a friendly amendment. <br />McAdams did not accept the friendly amendment. <br />Moon explained the amount of water yield in the area and said that it was sufficient for wells in this <br />subdivision. <br />Hughes spoke about a survey that was done on the water yields in this area and said that it was sufficient <br />for this subdivision. <br />In answer to the question about the fiscal impact analysis, Benedict said that the fiscal impact template is <br />not supposed to be the indication for approval or denial of the subdivision. He said that it was an <br />indication of the housing value and that in most cases rural area subdivisions do not pay for themselves. <br />Schofield asked why this subdivision could not be served by Orange-Alamance Water. He said that this <br />subdivision is not really rural because it is so close to US 70 and I-85. Benedict said that Orange- <br />Alamance has used their allocation from the Eno system and they cannot take on any new customers in <br />this area. <br />VOTE: Ayes, 7; Noes, 3 (Goodwin, Price, and Lasris) <br />Bryan requested that the staff make a report back about criteria for analyzing well capacity. <br />Chair Gooding-Ray asked for the reasons for the negative votes. <br />Goodwin said that he has concerns about traffic and water and the density of the development. <br />Price said that she does not agree with the uncertainty of the modified condition. She is concerned about <br />the imposed responsibility on various developers. <br />Lasris said that there would be a serious fiscal impact on the County. <br />AGENDA ITEM #9a: TUSCANY RIDGE <br />Note: This item was added because there were members of the public to speak about this <br />subdivision. <br />Public Comments: Tuscany Ridge (transcribed verbatim) <br />Gooding-Ray, Chair: We will hold you to three minutes for your comments. <br />Benedict: The Tuscany Ridge subdivision was approved here at the previous meeting [June 6, 2002]. It <br />was put on the agenda for approximately the June 18`t' meeting of the BOCC. It did not make it onto the <br />agenda that night because of other agenda items. It was moved to the June 27~ BOCC meeting at which <br />