HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93010_1329Fields said the commissioners might get a "black eye," but the citizens were now saying
that no one knew what was going on.
Madison said the commissioners couldn't promise anything. He said development in the
Brawlcy School Road area had occurred piecemeal fashion. Madison asked if it had been done
well.
Fields said that in his opinion it had not.
Waddell said the actions of the Mooresville town officials were blamed on the
commissioners.
Tsumas said he agreed that some people might say there was taxation without
representation, but that Statesville had been working on its USA for the past two years. Ile said
Mooresville would already be developed by the time a plan could be implemented.
Steve Johnson said there could always be a plan, but there was a "free market." He said
the commissioners had consistently approved ETJs on commercial properties, but it was the entity
that had the sewer lines that had the control over the area.
Anita Johnson encouraged the commissioners to meet with the Mooresville officials.
Smith said a plan could be developed and broken down into geographical areas, or it could
be a combination.
Steve Johnson agreed with Smith -- that the overlay plan on the road could be
extraterritorial jurisdiction and everything else in the outlying areas could be in an Urban Services
Area.
Smith said he would talk to the Mooresville officials and share the information.
Madison said he thought a joint meeting with Mooresville and Troutman might be a good
idea.
It was mentioned that a joint meeting with Statesville and Trouman might also be helpful.
McNeely asked about the proposed airport expansion and control by Statesville.
Steve Johnson said he didn't think there was any inclination on the city's part to run sewer
in that area. He said it was his opinion that the city did not intend to run its lines anywhere other
than the airport site.
The joint meeting with the planning board concluded at 10:25 a.m.
Discussion on the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR): Jim Dobson, Chairman
of the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Board, provided information on PDRs. He said the
Farmland Preservation Board, since 2001, had been studying tools that might aid in the preservation
of farmland, and PDRs were one of the methods being recommended. Dobson said PDRs offered
incentives to farmers to retain their property for agricultural use. A letter sent by Mr. Dobson
indicated that the concept allowed `landowners to voluntarily sell the development rights from the
land to an agency. The agency then paid the landowner the difference between the agricultural
value and the 'highest and best use' value and then placed an agriculture conservation easement on
the property. The easement 'runs with the land' and can have a time period of 15-30 years or it can
be perpetual. Easements can be drawn up to cater to agriculture activities by allowing new
construction of faun buildings and allowing land subdivision for employees and family members"
Dobson said his board was not asking for money, but instead, was asking for the opportunity to
work on a plan. He said there were grants and foundations that might assist financially, as well as
trust money. Mr. Dobson said everything needed a starting point, but that if the county didn't act
soon, he was afraid many opportunities would be gone. He said it would take time to write a good
plan, and his group desired to have coordination between several agencies on the project.
Chairman Johnson asked if the county needed to be the lead agency.