Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19870310-~` _~~ MINUTES ORANGE GOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 10, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County Planning Board on March 10, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Cultural Arts Center, Chapel Hill High School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina for a quarterly joint planning public hearing. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Jacobs (Chair), Chris Best, Dan Eddleman, Peter Kramer, Mike Lewis, Betty Margison, Sharlene Pilkey, Brenda Swann, Prince Taylor, Carl Walters, and Steve Yuhasz. A. BOARD COMMENTS Chair Marshall apologized for the notices being sent out late to those citizens who reside in the Rural Buffer area. She stated that notices had been published in the newspapers. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS .~ 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Those who had signed up to speak will be recognized at the appropriate time. 2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Marshall read the Public Charge as stated in the agenda. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill made reference to the recommendation made in the Rural Buffer Study that would allow property owners of record in the RB to create one lot for each child which would be exempt from the size .requirements o€ the RB zoning classification. He stated that there are also two other amendments that are related to that exemption and they would not be necessary if the Board accepts his recommendation to not permit an exemption for special consideration for children or family members. He continued, stating that, in his opinion, the County would be either without authority to do that or would in other ways violate the laws of the United States and North Carolina. He cited the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution which requires equal protection under the laws that regulate land use. The focus of the power of planning enabling legislation is on the use of the property rather than on the ownership. There is no rational basis under the law for distinguishing between owners of property when the use of the property is identical. The North Carolina Constitution has a similar provision -- Article 1, Section 19 says that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws. Article 1, Section 32 states that no person or set of persons is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community but. in consideration of public ser"vice. There is no public service involved which would exempt family members from dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. Therefore, there is a likelihood that any exemption for family members would likewise violate the North Carolina Constitution. The enabling legislation which allows counties to zone is contained in Chapter 153A of the North Carolina General:~_ Statutes. There are two sections - (1) Grant of Power - which allows the County, for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare to regulate the height and the number of stories, the percentage of the lot that may be occupied, lot sizes and densities, etc. (2) Purposes - :oning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan ind designed to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from Fire, panic and other dangers, to promote health and the general welfare, to provide adequate light and air, to prevent the overcrowding of land,. to avoid undue concentration of population, and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks and other public requirements. None of these purposes have anything to do with ownership of the property. Therefore any classification of property in regard to ownership would be beyond the authority of the County. The Supreme Court of North Carolina has expressed concern with legislation that would have the same effect as this. proposed exemption for family members in a number of ways. One of the limitations on zoning restrictions is that they cannot create zoning districts which are not consistent with the comprehensive plan. An example of this limitation is known as the prohibition of spot zoning. Spot zoning would be the result of such an exemption and would very probably be invalidated, by the courts. The theory behind the limitation on spot zoning is that the decision to so zone is arbitrary and nat based on the general purposes of the zoning enabling legislation. Gledhill continued that the problem is that there would be no legal reasonable basis for distinguishing between the property that would be owned by the :family members and the property owned by other people. For this reason, he recommended to the Board that they not create this special family exemption. Commissioner Willhait asked about similar prohibition against exempting iinor subdivisions from these provisions since they are exempt from other <::::.ispects of the Ordinance. Gledhill responded that minor subdivisions under the Caunty Subdivision regulations are subject to all the substantive provisions of major subdivisions. The difference between minor and major subdivisions is the process. They are required to meet all the same standards. In answer to a question from Council Member Julie Andresen, Gledhill stated that he did not have enough information or background on the Chesapeake County, Maryland case to comment as to whether or not it would be subject to a federal constitutional attack. The risk is that the people who will complain will not be the family members but those who wish to develop the property in higher density who would complain of unfair treatment. Chair Marshall assured the public that even though a few lots are involved that the Board is concerned and determined to find a solution for those families affected. Planning Director Marvin Collins informed the public of changes which had been implemented to help make the public notices in the newspaper easier to locate such as the logo which has been added to the tap of the notice and the addition of bold print for each topic listed. In addition, ie has been working with the news reporters to have lead stories as well as articles in other areas of the papers concerning the public hearing items. ie indicated that the public hearing notices are placed in the Durham Mornin Herald , The Cha el Hill News a er , the News and Observer and the News of Oran a He noted there was a miscommunication about the mailing ' ~ °:~ af'`~he postcards. Yt was decided to send them out late rather than not send them at all. ' OPENING STATEMENTS Marvin Collins explained that there are two items scheduled for public hearing. The first item has to do with a rural buffer study that was prepared by the Orange County Planning Department at the request of the Board of Commissioners. The second item has to do with a citizens' petition that was presented to the Board of Commissioners on January 5, 1987 which requested the Joint Planning Land Use Plan (plan for the southeastern portion of_the County) which was jointly adopted by the Board of Commissioners and the Town o.f Chapel Hill be amended to change the text. The specific text provision requested for amendment is the minimum lot size standard~in the Rural Buffer. That minimum lot size standard was set at one dwelling unit per two acres when the plan was jointly approved on October 13, ]:986. The requested amendment is to reduce that standard back to the original one dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre). Because both items are separate but interrelated they will be considered at the same time. Collins recognized the planning staff members who would be involved in the presentation -- Greg Szymik (current planning), Gene Bell and Brad Tongan (comprehensive/long range planning), and Emily Crudup (current planning). He announced that following the Orange County presentation, the Chapel Hill Planning Director Roger Waldon would make a brief presentation of the Chapel Hill perspective regarding the"Rural Suffer concept. Collins began the presentation highlighting some of the points in the history of joint. planning. On October 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Town of Chapel Hill adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. On November 24, 1986, a public hearing was held by the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the amendment of the Zoning ordinance and Zoning Atlas to create the Rural Suffer District and to apply that district designation to 38,000 acres of land surrounding the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area. The most significant change proposed was an increase in the minimum residential lot size requirement from 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre) to two (2)-acres. One of the concerns of the residents who live within the rural buffer was the issue of property rights. The property owners felt that the two acre minimum lot size requirement denies them reasonable use of their land. The concern presented by the County Attorney previously was also raised by some of the residents. Nonconforming lots is another concern. Many owners felt it was unfair to require the .combination of contiguous lots to meet the two--acre minimum lot. size .since these lots had been created under existing legal ordinances. Affordable housing was another major issue. With the increase in minimum lot size requirement and the increase in land cast, many families would be unable to create building lots for children. Environmental impacts was another concern. Soil conditions in the Rural Buffer are limited with regard to their capacity to absorb septic tank effluent. It was felt that with these limitations, there would be a real threat for groundwater contamination. It is the current policy not to allow public water and sewer rota the rural buffer except in emergency situations. - ....,, -::- . Tax increases and the ability to fund services in the Rural Suffer was n that the more stringent requirements of the Rural Buffer would encourage leap frog development. On January 5, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the Rural suffer zoning district designation and applied that designation to the x8,000 acres of land. Also at that meeting, a petition was presented by approximately 650 citizens asking that the. two- acre minimum lot size be reduced to 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre). Collins stated that because the Rural Suffer is a part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and because of the existence of the Joint Planning Agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and orange County, both Boards were required to sit jointly-at the hearing and both Baards were required to take action on the requests. Collins explained that the Rural Buffer Study was broken down into three main sections, DATA AND ANALYSIS, POLICY ANALYSIS, and IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM. Concurrent with the preparation of the study, anew Joint Planning Agreement was signed by orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill on February 3, 1987. The agreement established within the Rural Buffer, the Chapel Hi11 Joint Development Area (CHJDA) which lies north of I-40 and east of a north-south line adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest. Within this area, .Orange County standards and ordinances are in effect and the Town of Chapel Hi11 is granted courtesy review. Orange County may not vote to issue or deny a development permit until it has received the recommendations of Chapel Hill ~~r until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after Chapel Hill has -eceived the application, whichever occurs first. The new agreement '~~ecomes effective upon adoption of a zoning map and the Chapel Hi11 Land Development ordinance by Orange County. The first draft of the Rural Buffer Study was completed on February 27, 1987 and distributed to the Orange County Planning Board and Chapel Hill and Carrboro Planning Department for review. Following this review, a revision of the study was produced on March 4, 1987. Major recommendations contained in the study include: 1. Retain the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. Collins indicated the following reasons for retaining the two- acre minimum lot size requirement: a) The Rural Buffer concept as adopted by the County is an important growth management strategy in terms of defining the growth boundaries for the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area and preventing the sprawl of the urban area in the southeastern portion of the County. b) Equally important is the issue of environmental protection and open space. As well as University Lake Watershed, there is a substantial portion of Duke Forest and a significant amount of environmentally sensitive areas in the Rural Buffer. There are farms that are in operation or under use value taxation that contribute greatly to the open space surrounding the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area. For these reasons, the Planning Staff feels it is critical to maintain the two-acre_minimum lot size requirement. r 1 -'~ 2. Retain the policy prohibiting extension of water and sewer facilities a.nto the Rural Buffer except in emergency situations. Collins indicated that allowing public water and sewer extensions the potential for increased density is much greater. 3. Delete Article 11.7.2 of the Zoning ordinance, Non-Conforming Lots.. The amendment would allow owners of adjacent, undeveloped lots less than two (2) acres in size to develop their lots without combining them to create conforming lots. 4. Amend Article 4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, Rural Buffer (RB) Zoning district. The amendment would allow property owners of record in the Rural Buffer to create one lot for each child. such lots would be exempt from RB dimensional requirements, but would conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-1 Residential zoning district. The proposed amendment would add the following paragraph to Article 4.2.1. c) Exempt Lots A lvt created for use for a one-family residence by a child, or spouse of a child, or an owner of property zoned Rural Buffer would be exempt from the dimen- sional requirements of the Rural Buffer zoning district. Such a lot would be created in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the Rural Residential. (R-1) Zoning District. This exemption will apply only if the property owner can establish that he had legal title on or before January 5, 1987 and shall apply to only one such lot for each child of the property owner. 5. Collins reminded the Boards of the County Attorney's comments on this recommendation. Developments The amendment would prohibit exempt lots created under Article 4.2.1 of the. Zoning Ordinance from being further reduced in size under the provisions of this Section. Amend Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations, Cluster The amendment would consist of the following changes: Renumber paragraphs IV-B-10-C-a/b/c/d to IV-B-10-C-b/c/d/e respectively. Add the new paragraph IV-B-10-C-a a. Exempt lots created in accordance with Article 4.2.1 may not be further reduced in size by application of the provisions of this Section. 6. Amend the Zoning Atlas by applying the Public Interest District (PID) Zoning District to applicable lands. Collins indicated the PID zoning district is one designated.-~ for lands which are in public ownership. It also addresses private lands which represent designated open space areas such as the Duke Forest holdings. The minimum lot size requirement within the PID district is 400,000 square feet (approximately five (5) acres. Planning Staff would recommend seeking application of the PID district throughout the County. 7. Initiate a Purchase of Development Rights program by author- izing the Planning Department to prepare an Implementation Plan. Collins explained that acquisition of development rights means that the County would seek to acquire development rights for individual property owners far their property in such a manner that a lower density than permitted would be achieved. The County would compensate the property owner for the acquisition of the development rights. 8. Pursue special legislation to allow Transfer of Development Rights. Collins explained that for each individual property within an area there is a value placed on those development rights which may be on an acreage or per lot basis and the value is assigned by the County working with the individual property owners. The rights are then transferred to another portion of the County. Receiving areas are identified. He noted that this program had been a success program in Montgomery County, Maryland in relation to agricultural preservation. He also noted it had been successful in the Pinelands of New Jersey for environmental protection as well as agriculture preservation. 9. Amend Cluster Development provisions to encourage its use. Collins stated that this would promote the provision of open space in the Rural Buffer. - 10. Collect additional data on: a. environmentally significant areas; b. septic system failures; c. techniques to maintain visual quality. Collins indicated a more in-depth study should be done to more accurately determine the situation with septic tank failures. The need for an inventory of environmentally sensitive areas in Orange County has also been indicated. Planning Staff also feels the need for a study to ascertain the visual characteristics of the area and what design standards could be implemented in order to maintain that visual quality. Commissioner Hartwell asked if a mechanism was in place to tax the property owner at a lower tax rate after having sold development rights. :ollins responded that the impact aspect would be reviewed as a part of the authorization to prepare an implementation plan. Hartwell indicated that Forsyth County has an implementation plan whereby only the County is allowed to purchase development rights and the property owner is taxed at ;~ '`:i use value. Chapel Hill Town Council Member, R. D. Smith asked what the regula- tions were governing non-conformities in the Rural Buffer and how many lots would be nonconforming under this regulation. Collins responded that Article 11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance addresses nonconforming lots. He indicated that of the 4500 lots in the Rural Buffer approximately half of them would be nonconforming. However, those lots would only constitute 5 to 10~ of the total acreage in the Rural Buffer.` Nir. Smith continued asking the consequences of having a nonconforming lot. Collins responded that the nonconforming status stayed with the land until such time as the ordinance is amended to make it conforming or the property owner acquires additional land or takes whatever steps necessary to make the lot conforming. Roger Waldon, Chapel Hill Planning Director, presented Chapel Hill's perspective on Rural Buffer issues, Waldon began his presentation by commending the Orange County Planning Department on the Rural Buffer Study document. He indicated that he felt the policy analysis is one of the key points of the Rural Buffer Study which discusses the key issues and offers some good policy recommendations. He stated that from a staff perspective, Chapel Hill is in support of the recommendations as presented by Collins and that adoption of those recommendations would achieve the successful implementation of the Rural Buffer concept. Waldon stated that the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan have as a foundation the concept of a fixed urban. area surrounded by a low-density rural buffer. He indicated that such a concept would encourage urban development to occur in areas which can be most easily served by the urban services it will require. Such plans preserve the low-density nature of Central orange County. Waldon listed four points in answer to the question of "Why a 2-acre minimum lot size?" 1) when water and sewer are extended, development at urban type intensity occur; 2) the concept of a low-density rural buffer demands that water and sewer not be extended into the Rural Buffer; 3) a two-acre minimum lot size will insure that water and sewer are not extended, that the character of Central Orange County will be preserved and that ample land would be available for individual wastewater disposal systems now and in the future; 4) a minimum lot size requirement of one-acre would create a sprawling development pattern at such a density which would demand urban services. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mary Ellen Priestly stated that she and her husband had been property owners and taxpayers in Orange County since 1972. She noted appreciation for being able to live in a rural setting with trees and wildlife. She expressed concern with the impact that will be created by the opening of I-40. She encouraged maintaining the rural atmosphere of those rural areas of the county. She continued citing examples of the lass of rural communities she had witnessed in other areas. She encouraged the control of growth and she felt that the creation of the Rural Buffer and the two-acre minimum lot size to be a goad step forward in this effort. ,~ I i John F. Sharron asked that the reduction of the minimum lot size =- ; --;: requirment be reduced to one acre. Clara P. Trice also indicated the desire for a one-acre minimum lot size. James Bumphus asked that the minimum lot size be one acre. Delois Turner indicated the desire for a one acre lot size. Regina Nobblitt stated that her desire was to give her son one of the two acres belonging to her and thus was in favor of the one acre minimum lot size. Brian Yearclan indicated the property owned by his family had been in their ownership seventy years. He stated that young people were needed in the communities in Orange County. He felt that the regulations- of the Health Department regarding septic tanks was sufficient for regulating lot sizes. He expressed a concern that perhaps the Rural Buffer is simply a means for future annexation by the Town of Chapel Hill. He asked that decisions be made which would help all the citizens own homes in orange County. Lois Herrin indicated she was in favor of the two acre minimum lot size especially in the University Lake Watershed. She noted that increased density in a watershed decreases water quality. She indicated that she felt the right to use land carries many responsibilities such as protection of the water ,supply and to pass the land on undamaged to those who follow. Brian Lessle , a Durham attorney, indicated he represented a property owner who owned land in the Rural Buffer which abuts Duke Forest. "3e expressed concern that his client received his mail too late to submit a presentation. He asked if the creation of the PID district would be the ',°.,xtent of the protection of the forest or if there is a possibility of a `buffer zone being created around the forest. He also asked if such a proposal is made, will there be an opportunity for public comment. Chair Marshall responded that for any recommendations adopted there would be adequate study and adequate opportunity for public response. She continued that the actual change being considered at this hearing is to return the minimum lot size in the Rural Buffer to one acre. Furman Herrina .expressed the concern .with stewardship of the land and noted he is in support of the two acre minimum lot size in the Rural Buffer. Charles W. Johnston stated he had been living in the same location far 65 years. He indicated he felt that a one acre lot requirement had been a successful and noted that he felt a county-wide sewer system was a need that should be met. He expressed the concern that a landfill had been allowed but the extension of water and sewer was not allowed. Edward S. Johnson stated he was a resident of Bingham Township and Chair of the Bingham TAC. He noted that residents of Bingham Township were greatly concerned with leap-frog development into Bingham if development is restricted in the Rural Buffer to a two-acre lot size requirement. He was concerned that leap-frog development was not seen as the problem he felt it :a be. He reminded the Commissioners that they represented all of the :itizens in the County and not just Chapel Hill and/or the Rural Buffer ;one. He asked that the Planning Staff be directed to study the issue of leap-frog development and inform the citizens of Bingham Township if there is cause for concern. He also suggested that a way be found to access - :~ ap'inions from the rural townships to determine their concerns and whether or not development is desired. Commissioner Marshall commented that the Board is in the process of _ updating the Land Use Plan and those things the public has asked for such as~~? potential growth and the feelings of citizens, should be done township by township. She noted that Mr. Johnson as Chair of Bingham Township Advisory Council should be involved in such meetings that take place on the update of the Land Use Plan. She continued that the whole effect of growth throughout the County should be studied and brought together in one document which should be adopted after public hearing. The Rural Buffer is a background study to the problems that have been brought up and the specific amendment for consideration at this time is the request to reduce the minimum lot size requirement in the rural Buffer from two acres to one acre. Henr Whitfield expressed concern and possible confusion with the number of things happening in County planning at the same time and the magnitude of those things. He indicated he felt sufficient time had not been allowed for an indepth study of the Rural Buffer and the recommendations listed therein. He particularly noted the lack of data available on septic tank failure. He continued that he felt the existing ordinances were sufficient for the provision of orderly progression of urban and municipal development. He indicated he felt a checkerboard grid of two acre lots without public water and sewer would surely emerge and would impact far more on the natural environment than one acre lots or cluster lots which would encourage extension of public water and sewer and would promote larger tracts of unused land. He stated that he felt the one acre lots had left sufficient open,,..,, space and that the only reason fora two acre minimum lot size requirement: was to reduce density. He questioned the ability of newer residents to know more about stewardship of the land than those long time or lifetime residents. He indicated he felt there were still many questions to be answered about a two-acre minimum lot size requirement. He felt the majority of the citizens had not been considered in this requirement. Mr. Whitfield stated he felt excessive regulations and planning beyond that which is needed fora high quality of living is being implemented. He felt this would tend to destroy the desire to own property and pay taxes. He expressed the feeling that the City and County governments should institute a long range policy for acquiring the open space and park land needed for the future growth of the County. John Cates indicated he has been a property owner and taxpayer of orange County for over sixty years. He was not in favor of the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. He felt that one acre was sufficient for many home owners. Geor a L. Wheless expressed confusion with the watershed around Morgan Creek and indicated a desire to have the Board address those questions. Mar Le Ma indicated she is a property owner in the extra territorial jurisdiction. She expressed the desire that the larger community be considered and protected. She also expressed support for the Rural Buffer recommendations. David Merten expressed support for the Rural Buffer and urged the Board of Commissioners to support the buffer and watershed protection. David Parrish expressed the desire to be able to subdivide his four acres of land to give one acre to each of his three children. Robert E. Cowan indicated he was in the process of looking for land .o purchase on which to build a home. He felt that young people as well as poor people were being restricted from owning property and homes due to the increased cost with larger lot sizes. Helene Ive expressed concern with expanding development in the form of apartments. She noted that she felt a bond issued should be held to acquire open space and parks that were needed. She indicated she felt the Rural Suffer was unfair to those desiring to build homes. $obby Spauah expressed concern with the regulations and the procedures necessary to be able to build a home and indicated he was nat in favor of a two-acre minimum lot size requirement.. He stated that he felt a rural setting was being provided for a metropolitan area for those to enjoy at the property owners expense. Theo Cantwell expressed concern with the lots that are not buildable due to perk test failure. He noted it is important for young people to be able to purchase land and build homes. He was in favor of one acre minimum lot size. Robert„ Mays stated that he owned a one-acre nonconforming lot. He expressed concern that if his home were destroyed by fire that he could not rebuild due to being a nonconforming lot. He continued that he felt he should be due a reduction in tax value since he had a nonconforming lot. iarvin Collins, Planning Director, responded that the grange County Zoning ordinance permits a home destroyed by fire to be rebuilt. County Attorney, Geoff Gledhill, responded that the only requirement to be met would be setback requirements. Mr. Mays continued that the only way he could be assured that his rights were being protected would be for the Board to change the two-acre minimum lot size requirement to one acre. James Plym,ire indicated he felt there were still -some unanswered questions about the Rural Suffer and some of the recommendations of the study are invalid. He stated he felt a moratorium should be placed on the recommendation of the two-acre minimum lot size until such time as a complete study could be made. B. B. olive , representing the Triangle Land Conservancy indicated he was in favor of the Rural Buffer and preserving the quality of the environment but expressed the idea that perhaps it should extend farther to the north. He stated that he felt it was an invalid premise that public water and sewer could be prevented in the Rural Buffer. He felt the 38,000 acres could be substantially reduced by an agreement with Duke University regarding restriction on Duke Forest properties. He felt there were those large property owners who would be willing to build on only two-acres or possibly five acre lots and this would reduce problems. Melvin Parrish stated he felt more people are better served by a one acre minimum lot size requirement. He indicated that he felt the two acre minimum lot size requirement was unfair to many residents of the County. He felt there would be sufficient open space since much of the land in the Rural Buffer would not perk. Jeff Collins stated he was the Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club and that the club was in favor of the two acre minimum lot size requirement. He. expressed the feeling that there had been much public input. He indicated he felt the Joint Planning Agreement was a plan that would manage ',-"' growth in a wise way. He stated that he was also against the extension of public water and sewer into the Rural Buffer. Brad Walters stated he is the owner of a nonconforming lot in the Rural Suffer. He expressed concern for those who wished to pass land on to children but would be unable to due to legalities as presented by-the County Attorney. He expressed approval of the recommendation to not extend water and sewer into the Rural Suffer. He felt that was essential to maintain the buffer. Mr. Walters asked Mr. Collins the percentage of the 38,000 acres which would not perk. Collins responded that information is not available. Commissioner Marshall noted that that information would be very difficult to obtain. Mr. Walters continued that he felt a bond issue would the best way to acquire open space and parkland. Nick_Tennyson stated he is president of the Homebuilder's Association of Durham/Chapel Hill. He indicated he felt that one acre lots are needed in order that housing can be provided. Ruth Williams opposed the two acre minimum lot size requirement. Mrs. W. M. Burnette indicated opposition to the two acre minimum lot size requirement. Carl Walters indicated the farmers in the Rural Suffer had not been` spoken to about the recommendations for the area. He noted that Mapleview'•`:-. Farm had received national recognition. He stated there were three contiguous farms totaling 1000 acres. If Carrboro and Chapel Hill really need open a Rural Buffer/open space, how much are they willing to pay for it? He suggested that if we want things to stay agricultural/open, that it be left in the hands of the farmers who know ho'w to protect it. Mr. Walters stated that a l5~ slope is not reasonable. He noted the state of Maine has encouraged farmers to preserve level areas and clear slopes. No one has come up with a number of acres greater than 15~ and unperkable. Mr. Walters asked that if that number of acres plus several full-time dairy farms (Cheeks, Hogan, Dodson & Cates), is considered, just how much land is left to develop? Walters stated he did not feel enough information was available to "put anything down in concrete". If the desire is to preserve farmlands for open space, let's give some incentives that are more than just suggestions. Cecil Griffin stated that higher density is needed to lower the costs of governmental services. He asked why the two acre minimum lot size requirement should just apply to the Rural Buffer rather than the entire county. He indicated he felt it was illogical to expect that two acres is sufficient for wildlife and a rural environment. Mr. Griffin noted that on twa occasions the Orange County Planning Board had recommended a one acre minimum lot size and the Board of County Commissioners voted for a two acre minimum lot size. He asked why .the Planning Board is not recommending one acre naw. S ence Dickinson indicated he felt that everyone will not be represented no matt acre or two acres. not be developed as would be preserved. many problems. ~~. -; er whether the minimum. lot size requirement would be"on~~ He felt that those lands owned by Duke University should many of those lands had been donated in order that it He indicated that development costs are high and create Hezekiah Dodson stated he was a former sanitarian and that 40,000 aquare feet was sufficient for a septic system as well as an alternative system. He also stated he was concerned that the municipality would tell those citizens living in the watershed that public water and sewer would not be provided to taxpayers. He stated that public water and sewer is the best way to protect the watershed. James Austin indicated opposition to the.two acre minimum lot size. Ben Lloyd stated that he was on the Board of County Commissioners when the two acre minimum lot size requirement was adopted. He indicated that he now felt the two acre minimum lot size was a mistake which would make affordable housing unavailable. Lloyd wondered if those responsible. for the study would be affected by the two acre minimum lot size requirement and asked that the minimum lot size requirement be changed back to one acre. Marilyn Heryiew indicated she favored the two acre minimum lot size and felt it was important to protect the rural setting of the area. Larry Reid expressed concern that the study is not yet complete. He stated that he felt the information was desperately needed as to how many of the 19,000 two acre lots would perk. - Mark O'Neil expressed opposition to the minimum lot size. Perhaps ::here is some type of transition that could be done from one to two acres. R. D. Smith Chapel Hill Town Council Member, stated that as a member of the Affordable Housing Task Force, he felt that the two acre minimum lot size is a crucial issue in providing affordable housing. He indicated the Affordable Housing Task Force had decided to wait for a decision as to the two acre or one acre minimum lot size. He continued that it was a waste of his time if decisions were going to be made that wou7.d not allow for affordable housing. He stated that zoning should not create more nanconformities but eliminate nonconformities. He noted that many -of those persons speaking tonight were having severe problems making such changes so late in life far the provision of homes for family members. Council Member Smith moved, seconded by Council Member Preston, to refer the issue to Chapel Hill Town Manager for recommendation. Commissioner Halkiotis moved, seconded by Commissioner Carey to leave the public hearing open until April 6, 1987 to receive the recommendation from Chapel Hill. VOTE: Unanimous. The meeting adjourned 11:40 p.m. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair 3everly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary