Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19940630 e z 1 APPROVED 8/8/94 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JUNE 30, 1994 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met on June 30, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. , in the new County Courthouse, Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for a Joint Public Hearing. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko, Don Willhoit and Alice Gordon (arrived at 8:30 p.m. ) COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Jr. , Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planner Mary Willis, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Clint Burklin, Acting Chair, members Larry Reid, Sally Boericke, Elizabeth Walters, Virginia Boland, Margaret Brown, Paul Hoecke, Kent Scott and Joan Jobsis (arrived at 8:30) . A. OPEN REMARKS Chair Carey called the meeting to order and welcomed the Planning Board members and citizens in attendance. He indicated that Clint Burklin would preside over both of the items on the agenda. Speakers were asked to keep their comments to a maximum of three minutes. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey read the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - AR/R1 Residential Zoning Districts (Two Acre Minimum Lot Size Requirement/Density Averaging) 2. Rural Character Preservation Strategies These items were presented by Marvin Collins in order to receive citizen comments on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would establish a minimum required lot size of two acres throughout the county's planning and zoning jurisdiction and to receive citizen comments on rural character/open space preservation strategies and issues. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS ROY BROCKWELL, an Orange County resident, indicated that he lived in one of the R-1 areas. His community has lots of approximately 1.2 acres. He stated that he is speaking on behalf of himself and most of his neighbors. They appreciate living close to urban services without losing the benefits of their rural community. This proposed change would affect 37% to 43% of the current land in Orange County. In his opinion, it is questionable that the two acre minimum lot size would ensure the protection of rural character in Orange County. He suggested that clustering might be a solution. He also asked for clarification as to whether he would be able to rebuild on his 1.2 acre lot in the event that his home was destroyed by fire. Commissioner Willhoit indicated that this proposal applies to land that has not yet been subdivided. He assured Mr. Brockwell that all lots of record would be protected under their original approval. He would be allowed to rebuild. KATHERINE NELSON indicated that she and her family operate a farm in 2 Bingham Township. She noted that the map on display at the meeting was not identical to the small map that had been distributed. She requested that the large map be displayed so that citizens could review it and that it also be published in several local newspapers. She is in support of this proposal. BOB STRAYHORN indicated that he is a resident of New Hope Church Road, an Orange County farmer and member of the Rural Character Study Committee. He commented that a lot of negotiation went into the Committee's final report and he supported most of the recommendations of that Committee. This proposal is intended to improve the life of all Orange County residents and is not supposed to take away value from landowners. For that reason, he does not support requiring a two acre minimum. He also commented that the open space developments, or clusterings, concept is not his idea of rural use. He does not oppose clustering being one of the options as long as it is not required. He opposed cluster development being mandatory. The agreement that the Rural Character Study Committee reached was that the landowner would have the right to choose how to develop their property. Offering incentives to developers who protect that rural character was very well received in the public meetings held by the Rural Character Study Committee. He asked that those incentives be considered as a part of this plan. CLAUDE LUNSFORD asked for clarification about the use of lots of record which are less than one acre. COMMISSIONER CAREY indicated that if a lot has already been subdivided it can be built upon. MURRAY LYNCH, an Orange County resident and farmer, indicated that he was in agreement with Mr. Strayhorn. He commented that the tax base would fall if the minimum lot size is set at two acres. He ask that the Commissioners vote against this minimum. TONY CLEESE, President of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, spoke in support of sustainable agriculture and organic agriculture. He commented on how farms could be included in the rural character preservation strategies. He serves on a statewide task force which is studying how agriculture and society integrate. Some of the problems they have identified are that 1) farming is not currently financially viable, 2) billions in federal funds are being channeled into the support of farming, 3) many rural communities are suffering because of the financial difficulties of the farmers and 4) tobacco is collapsing as a farming commodity. He feels that although it is difficult for the farmers to continue to maintain their land, that solutions do exist. One solution is to integrate farms into the community design. One way of doing that is for shares of the harvest to be sold to members of the community. A community-wide survey of prime agriculture land could be undertaken to identify land which would then be designated as farming land. Incentives, or cost share, could then be offered to keep farmers on the land. He indicated that Orange County, with three active farmers markets, is already a beacon of hope for farmers. He asked that land uses be designated in the most appropriate ways possible to support the farming community. TYSON CLAYTON indicated that he was a lifelong resident of Orange County and a representative of Hillsborough Savings and Loan. He commented that although 57% of the county is already in 2 acre minimum lots, that is not any reason for the remainder to be designated 2 acres. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that planners must show that legal, and mandated, land set-asides are designed to address specific environmental harms. He does not believe that this minimum lot requirement addresses public or environmental harm. He indicated that the public hearing notice stated that major subdivisions in the rural areas already average approximately two acres per lot. That is not justification for two acres being mandatory. Affordable housing will suffer a setback if the two acre lot minimum is approved. He asked that the Commissioners 3 not approve the two acre lot minimum. He mentioned that his experience with owning a non-conforming lot on Lake Orange was that it was extremely difficult to expand on that type of lot. He asked that consideration be given to the land owners whose lots would be non-conforming if the two acre minimum was approved. He indicated that the tax base would be seriously compromised if the two acre lot was approved. REVEREND JOSEPH S. HOCUTT, JR., a resident of Governor Burke Road, indicated that he has 9 and 6/10 acres of land which has been subdivided. His son has been attempting to put a trailer on this land. He put in a driveway, cleaned off the land and had it tested for its ability to perk. He has now been told by the Planning Department that he could not build unless his grandmother and aunt moved off of the land. He indicated that his son and daughter-in-law have 4 children and they both work. They are being hurt by not being able to build on this land. He stated that he has worked hard to buy and maintain his land. He hopes that his son will be able to build a home for his family. He asked that the two acre minimum be rejected. JERRY GAMBILL, a real estate appraiser, broker and developer, with a company in Durham spoke in opposition to the 2 acre lot minimum. His company has developed over 400 acres of land in Durham and Orange County for single family subdivisions, most of which use wells and septic tanks. They have also brokered over 1000 acres of land in the two counties over the last 5 years. He asked that the Commissioners carefully consider the reality of the Planning Department's statement that "average lot size over the last several years has been two acres." Many of those lots were much larger than two acres and many were only one acre. He has been involved in projects which have lot sizes ranging from one and one- half acre lots to a maximum of 11 acre lots in the same development. Changing the lot sizes will adversely affect the investment made by land owners in Orange County. He stated that the soils in the county, along with the slope requirements, are such that they often dictate that lot sizes will be one, one and one/half, two and in some instances up to 10 acres. This would also impact on the ability of low income residents to purchase land. He requested that the Commissioners not change the system. ED HOLLOWAY, a land owner on the Orange/Durham border, spoke in opposition to the proposed two acre lot minimum. He indicated that they have spent months, and considerable money, pursuing a development plan. The requirements for his land are currently more restrictive than the competing land which is in Durham County. He stated that this proposal seems to him to be arbitrary and without economic or environmental value. He asked that the two acre minimum be rejected as an option. SCOTT BARBER, an Orange County resident, indicated that taking care of the land and avoiding urban sprawl seem to be the important issues here. He asked the Commissioners to establish requirements that stop "cookie cutter" development. Open space, which includes ecologically sensitive areas and farming areas, must be guaranteed for future generations. ARTHUR COGSWELL, a representative of the University Station project, indicated that they were encouraged by the Planning Department to develop the site along the lines of the current plan, with the adjoining transition zone extended so that municipal services could be extended to the site. The staff and Planning Board endorsed that plan. Over time that plan was modified as a result of the work of the Rural Character Study Committee. One change they instituted was to option for additional land so that the golf course could be located along I-85 rather than on Stony Creek. He stated that this site is not rural. It lies between I-85 and I-40. It has a railroad and a Duke Power easement running through it and is bounded by another railroad. It has been identified for some time as being a candidate site for development. He strongly opposes the two acre lot minimum. 4 He read a petition from land owners which states, as follows: That the County Commissioners are committing an egregious error, and ignoring the rights of property owners in the University Station development and neighborhood. A vocal minority is controlling the use of the land belonging to others and is setting a frightening precedent for the treatment of property owners elsewhere in Orange County. We will not stand by idly and see our property down zoned, devalued and overregulated. The petition is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. JOHN MOORE, a Falls of the New Hope community resident, spoke in support of open space cluster development. He asked that open space development be mandatory for building density of one unit per two acres and one unit per five ares. The definition of open space should be defined as having a minimum of 50% buildable acreage left in a natural setting. That natural setting would include a great deal of agricultural land. He suggested that development pressure is increasing in the community and protection must be in p lace to assure that sprawl is not allowed to occur. P RICHARD DANIELS, a developer and builder, addressed the issue of affordable housing. He indicated that 18 months ago a 1200 sq. ft. home was selling for $75,000. Today the same house sells for $92,500. That is a 25% increase. Most of this was due to lumber cost, impact fees and land costs. The two acre requirement will cause home ownership to be out of the reach of many moderate income citizens. With a two acre requirement, the 1200 sq. ft. home of 18 months ago would cost $104,500. FRANCES PARKER, owner of the Carr Dairy Farm, commented that her parents have protected and cared for this land for over 50 years. She asked that the County Commissioners not allow the value to be devalued by approving the two acre lot minimum. She stated that the University Station Plan which was developed by Mr. Cogswell is beautiful and well planned. Higher density is necessary if there is to be affordable housing in Orange County. She requested that the University Station plan be approved. ELEANOR CARR BOYD, spoke in support of the University Station plan. She asked that rational thinking prevail and that this proposed neighborhood be approved. She requested that the one unit per 2 acres be rejected. ALLEN PARSONS, an Orange County resident, asked if the proposal would affect the value of property currently subdivided. GEOF GLEDHILL indicated that this proposal would affect the further subdivision of the lots but not the lots that currently exist. ROY MC ADOO, a resident of Cheeks Township, requested that the two acre lot minimum be rejected. This will further hinder the purchase of land by those on fixed incomes. BRYAN R. YATES did not speak. HELEN H. YATES did not speak. ROBERT JABOSKIE did not speak. B. POPE did not speak. LESIA LITLE did not speak. JAMES SMITH, an Orange County resident, spoke in opposition of the two acre 5 lot size minimum. KENT HAYES, an Orange County resident, spoke in support of the two acre lot size minimum. HAZEL LUNSFORD, an Orange County resident, indicated that she lives just outside the extraterritorial area. She spoke against the two acre lot minimum. She believes that this would make it more difficult for moderate income folks to buy and build in Orange County. STEPHEN ROBERTS, a builder and a native of Orange County, commented on the growth which has already occurred in Orange County over the years. He spoke against this proposal because the people who own this land have a right to develop it as they choose. R. P. EDWARDS, an Orange County resident, spoke against the proposal to increase the minimum lot size to two acres. ROBERT GRIFFIN, an Orange County resident, spoke against the proposal to increase the lot size to two acres. SANDY STALLINGS indicated that the rural character of Orange County is one of its most precious resources. The preservation of rural character in important to the future of Orange County. She indicated support for the open space cluster housing model. CALLIE WARNER, an Orange County resident, indicated support for the preservation of rural character and the continuing availability of affordable housing. She stated that the zoning proposal that is being presented is excellent. She spoke in support of required open space cluster development. She showed a series of slides which presented a visual picture of Orange County as it is today as well as other communities and their solutions to the increasing demand for housing. ANN VALENTINE also presented several slides showing examples of the conventional cookie-cutter type of sprawl. She pointed out that the development in North Raleigh was an example of 70% open space being an option rather than a requirement. The result was very little open space. She feels that with the cookie-cutter option of one acre or one unit per two acre, all the beautiful land will be developed in Orange County. She showed slides which illustrated how development needs can be addressed while providing farmers with opportunities to develop their land or continue farming. She does not support the unbuildable areas being included in the 50% open space calculation. After the unbuildable areas are highlighted, the 50% buildable land should be identified for preservation which may include farmland, forest land, vistas and environmentally sensitive areas. It is at this point, the determination is made where the house lots can be placed on the land. She showed slides of how much open space is left. Instead of putting added infrastructure costs on the developer with conventional development, the road system in an open space development is minimized, with lower cost to the developer. Homeowners also benefit because they don't have to look at roads from the front, side or back of their houses. Common open space is provided and a sense of community is created. These kinds of developments are not only desirable but the resale value is greater than conventional developments. She showed an open space development in Pennsylvania and said that people are willing to pay money to look out on farmland. DAN KENAN, a resident of Orange County for 35 years and a research scientist at Duke University, spoke in support of preserving rural character. This is one of the best ways to maintain the precious resources in the County. He presented a slide showing a document commissioned by Orange County and done by the Triangle Land Conservancy called "The Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat in Orange County". Most of the 64 sites identified are located 6 in the southeast quadrant of the County. That area needs to be protected from development. He feels that the County needs to be concerned with biological resources and protect them the best they can. REX BENTLEY made reference to the Golden Rule. He feels that if one landowner develops their land in a cookie-cutter development, it is not the end of the world. However, if every landowner in the County developed their land that way, the County will end up like north Raleigh or Los Angeles. He feels that when that happens, every single person in the audience will want to move away. The decision is to stand by and let that happen or do something to keep that from happening. He is in favor of the open space planning and the two acre minimum lot size. He does not feel that landowners have to sacrifice anything. A developer can come in and develop the same number of houses as under conventional zoning and the developer will have substantial cost savings as well. No one losses under this situation. JAY ZARAGOZA feels the main issue is whether the County will get into the sewer extension business or allow package treatment plants or community wastewater facilities on site. He presented a written statement which is in the permanent agenda file. In summary, he indicated that open space-cluster development strategy should maintain the zoning district's density. Density should not be reduced from the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size to the average density typically achieved in conventional subdivisions served by individual wells and septic systems. Each lot within a cluster development should be capable of accommodating its own septic system. The quality and quantity of the open space within the development should be, for the most part, at the discretion of the subdivider. The rules governing cluster developments should be relatively easy to understand so that the general citizen will feel comfortable using the option. Lastly, the ordinance that creates the open space-cluster development options should require the establishment of a homeowner's association to own and be responsible for the open space. LEE RAFALOW asked that testimony from previous hearings on this same issue be included in the minutes for this meeting. The objective, as he understands it, is to preserve rural character or rural spaces. He asked that the Board think about rural spaces as farmland, forest, streams, and wildlife habitats. These are the kind of things found in rural spaces. The things not found in rural spaces would be recreation facilities, airports, etc. He feels that cluster development is an important concept in that it provides the tools to preserve large amounts of space and yet allow development. The key issue is to preserve the rural activities that are already going on in the County and allow them to continue. He asked that the Board consider Transfer of Development Rights to make sure that farmers have a mechanism whereby they can get money for the investment they have in the property and still allow that property to be used for farming activities. He believes that 50% is the necessary minimum buildable open space. He does share concerns heard this evening about low income housing and feels it important to have a mechanism to allow developers like Habitat for Humanity to continue to do the work they do in this County. In Ocala Florida they have a lot size minimum of 40 acres. He asked that the Board use the two acre minimum as a guideline and use small area plans as a method for applying the guidelines to specific neighborhoods and regions so that all the concerns can be addressed. LESTER RAY, Dairy Farmer from White Cross, thanked the members of the Rural Character committee. He is in favor of the recommendation -- of the minimum two acre lot size for AR and R-1, using clustering and the 50% open space requirement not to include the unbuildable areas. He is not in favor of the density bonus unless the open space set-aside is greater than 50%. He urged landowners who feel these measures to preserve rural character are too restrictive, and/or who believe that too much burden is being placed on those who have been preserving rural character all along, to support the Purchase of Development Rights. Then the voters can decide how important rural character is to them. He feels that 7 the farmers provide more to the community than just food or production. His greatest wish is that any ill feelings caused by this controversy gives way to a greater understanding that people may need people in ways they have never considered before. He asked that the Board help him and others who want to farm rather than develop their land. BEN LLOYD, dairy farmer in Efland, stated he has no problem with providing adequate land on which to build a house. He checked with other counties and found that Durham County has a minimum lot size of 30,000 sq.ft., Wake County has 20,000 or 30,000, Alamance County has 30,000 sq.ft., Guilford County, 30,000 or 40,000 sq.ft., Person County has a minimum lot size of one acre, Chatham County has 40,000 sq.ft. and Forsyth County has 20,000. He made reference to a meeting he recently attended on Vision 2000. Bob Rubin presented a new type of sewage disposal called the drip system which is a sand filtering type system. He feels that people can safely live on one acre of land and there is no environmental reason to go with anything beyond one acre of land. A two acre minimum will drive the nails into the coffin of affordable housing. With regards to clustering, he feels that most people do not want to live in a condo type housing atmosphere. He has no problem with 50% open space as long as the County owns the land. He feels that 50% open space devalues his land. He suggested that city folks, nature lovers and anyone else who wants to preserve open space, buy it. JOHN HANSEN, a citizen and a developer in Orange County, said that he goes to the farmers and buys their land and builds houses. He is doing a cluster development at the present time. It is a misconception that the developer will save money by putting in the infrastructure. If there are small lots, this may be true but with larger lots, this is not true unless there is sewer and water at the site. He asked that the Board consider all the approaches to give the developer some flexibility on doing a cluster development. He feels there are other ways to preserve open space. COLEEN CARLUCCI, business owner in Chapel Hill and a real estate broker, said that marketing cluster housing does not work. People prefer to have more land around them than clustering provides. This type of mandate of cluster housing drives the price of land up. She does not believe that sprawl will happen in Orange County because of the soil conditions and the rural character. MARTY MANDELL stated that right now tonight she supports the 37% going to two acre minimum lot size. She also supports the open space concept of at least 50% of the buildable land and she supports clustering. Clustering is not a new idea. Communities over the United States have been built using the cluster and open space concept. She does not support an increase in density. These steps are a very good beginning, but that is all. She feels that the regional approach that the elected officials are embarking upon is going to be the solution to this. She feels that people are beginning to rethink the preciousness of the land and respect for it. Tobacco is being dropped but the growth of organic farmer is increasing. She feels that everyone's needs must be met. She looks forward to hearing about how to preserve wildlife, how to have wildlife corridors, how to preserve natural resources and also how all the citizens can share in the success of this county. JOHN HARTWELL stated he was a longtime advocate for Transfer of Development Rights and putting in the mechanisms to make clustering possible. He is representing the Habitat Board and expressing their feelings He made reference to the gentlemen in Mebane who offered to build a house in Mebane. They located some property and closed on that piece of property which will not be affected by these proposed amendments. His goal is to see affordable housing for people all over Orange County. He does not see the quality of life threatened by providing affordable housing on smaller lots than two acres. He made reference to the $750 impact fee and said that this fee was not scaled so that a house worth one million would pay any more than a house worth $60,000. He feels that the little 8 person is being squashed. He asked that the Board focus on empowering people to make possible what now is not possible for them -- not on shutting them off from the only thing they look forward to having. Robert Cantwell did not speak BOB HALL stated that God values all the farmers everywhere. The reason the land values are increasing is because of the local market of the Research Triangle and the University and not because of the character of Orange County farmers. He does not actually support the two acre minimum the way it is stated. The rural character study was correct in that it should have provisions for people who have land now to have five one acre lots to divide it up for their family or to sell it. There should be bonuses for affordable housing. He supports the principles of the rural character study. LIVY LUDINGTON, member of the Rural Character Study Committee, said she is struck by the amount of hostility and animosity she has heard at this hearing. The County is growing so quickly and somehow there must be a way to be fair to everybody but not ruin Orange County. The Rural Character Study Committee worked for a long time to come up with some compromises. There are other options in the recommendation. One is that property owners would have up to five one acre lots. She does not feel that two acre minimum lots will preserve rural Orange County. There have got to be other ways to do it. Clustering should not be written off -- it is a compromise and a way to see that people still get value for their land and at the same time preserve what they love about this County. The two acre lot size will not work without clustering. She feels that the open space needs to be contiguous open space and not piecemeal. There must be a plan for open space. Open space is valued by everyone and must be protected. With regards to Purchase of Development Rights, the land will cost a lot more with one acre lots and the County will be limited in the amount they are able to preserve. She feels there must be a way for everyone to work together and come up with a way for everyone to protect Orange County and preserve it as the beautiful place it is now. ROY ROTH presented a written statement which is in the permanent agenda file. In summary he favors the two acre zoning as a baseline. He favors the 50% open space at baseline and agrees with what has been said about clustering development. He feels that a lot of common interests have been expressed in the comments made this evening and that the major task for the Planning Board is to find that common interest and exploit it by putting together a package that will be good and useful for everyone. The major question is how to control development and preserve rural character. A lot of people want to do this. LYNDON WHITFIELD, a local dairy farmer, spoke against the minimum two acre lot proposal. He feels that the farms will be going because the market has decreased for beef. CURT HOGAN did not speak. GENIE KOMINES stated that she has lived in Orange County for one year and plans to be here for another fifty years. She is in favor of the two acre lot size and the 50% open space set-aside of the buildable acreage. She feels this is the only way to preserve anything of what is considered important about Orange County. She feels that the County should find ways to allow people who are currently farming and want to continue farming in Orange County to do so. Having the large amount of contiguous open space available is one very good option for allowing people to do that. MICHAEL CHANDLER, member of the National Association of Homebuilders, stated he has been working as a general contractor in Orange County for fifteen years and supports the recommendation. He feels that cluster housing is a good idea, particularly in areas where there is more than one house per five acres. He made reference to an article in the Professional Builders magazine on a 9 subdivision in Atlanta. They have done a great job with cluster housing. He supports transfer of development rights which is the key of affordability of doing planned development. He feels that density bonuses are loopholes but feels that some loopholes are needed for low-income housing. He is in favor of supporting low-income housing. He feels that the developers are necessary. He noted that every year there are more people living on this entire planet and Orange County cannot just keep people out. Planning for development rationally, ethically and sustainable is the way to go. He has a concern about big companies coming in from Texas into the Research Triangle and putting up large subdivisions. LARRY CARROLL agrees with what Bob Strayhorn and John Hartwell said. He supports the one acre minimum lot size. He assured the Board that if the two acres passes, he will make more money building these houses than building $80,000 houses. He feels that the County already has the majority of the land in two acre lot size in the watershed and only 43% left outside the watershed that could be developed and much of that is in already developed area. The area is not that great that would be switched to two acre lot size. KEITH COOK stated that he works with the Orange Housing Corporation. They are trying to build 42 homes for affordable housing. They use all the land they can get. If they had to abide by the two acre minimum lot size, they could not have affordable housing. It puts everyone out of the market who is trying to have a home. Everyone is not equal in Orange County. He is not in favor of two acre minimum lot size. He asked that everyone be included. He feels that one responsibility of the citizens is to take care of the people who have the least. He asked why they would have fifty acres of open space that did not include parks. These should be used for parks and places for people to walk -- not just for animals. He asked that the minimum lot size be kept at one acre, so people can afford to live here and the children can afford to stay in the county. He does not feel that anyone should have any say over another persons land and what they do with that land. JENNIFER MILLER said she supports the statements made by Callie Warner and Les Dunbar. She does not feel that two acre minimum will destroy affordable housing. They are not getting affordable housing now. She would like to see the two acre minimum with incentives for developers who will provide affordable housing instead of incentives for higher density. She would like to see the 50% open space/natural space which will provide more trees to help with air pollution and it helps with runoff. With open space, the long term value of the land will increase without regards to individual profits. BOBBY NICHOLS is not in favor of the two acre minimum lot size. As a member of the Savings and Loan Board, he is concerned about affordable housing. He asked for clarification on when a house can be rebuilt on a nonconforming lot. Mary Willis said that a house can be rebuilt on a nonconforming lot if it is destroyed by fire as long as it meets the dimensional requirements. His concern is with previous property that has been financed at 100 or 110% and the value decreases because of the property becoming nonconforming. Commissioner Willhoit clarified that a lot of record will not become nonconforming. The Subdivision Ordinance would have an affective date for this amendment and any lots created after that effective date would have to be a minimum of two acres. The lots in the watershed area which have been rezoned, are not nonconforming lots because they were developed under the Subdivision Ordinance. Geof Gledhill said that what is being proposed is a Zoning Ordinance Amendment which would change the minimum lot size so that any lots less than the minimum lot size would be technically nonconforming but the nonconforming use section of the County ordinance essentially exempts the rebuilding of residential houses from the minimum lot size requirement. VIC KNIGHT spoke in regards to appraisal issues. He explained that the Appraisal Institute recognizes several different ways to determine the highest 10 and best use of property. One is a physical possibility, one is a legal possibility, one is financial and one is maximum productivity. If a piece of property has a zoning to it that has a larger area, the zoning issue that has been applied to it has a direct relationship to the value that is given to the property. He feels that people will not be able to develop their property of the regulations imposed by the financial institutions. Soil conditions are ultimately the limiting factor for development. He feels that the financial and business side of development needs to be considered. His concern with the clustering concept is that other clustering regulations that exist will not work. He is not in favor of the proposal. END OF PUBLIC COMMENTS A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko to refer these items to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 8, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on Monday, August 8, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Old County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk