Orange County voters gave a resounding endorsement to two controversial charter amendments aimed at limiting development on rural lands, while enshrining at least seven lower-profile ballot questions into the county’s governing document. The remaining measure is too close to call. New rules governing how cities can expand their boundaries and how developers can build on rural lands were the most highly charged of the proposals — and voters signed off in decisive fashion.
Amendment 9 draws a rural boundary on more than 345,000 acres across the county, or 54% of its landmass, and now requires a supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners to increase the density or intensity of development, or to remove a property from the boundary. With a small percentage of votes outstanding, it won 72.6% of the vote.
Advocates say this was needed to protect environmentally sensitive areas and prevent urban sprawl; it can be costly to provide services and infrastructure to far-flung corners of the county. Builders and developers argued the rural boundary violates private property rights and will make it more difficult to build housing needed to keep up with job growth. Included in that now-protected swath is a property where a development group proposed to build Sustanee, a project of 1,800 homes on ranchland east of the Econ River.
The developer was a heavy contributor to candidates for county commission seats, the same board that rejected the proposal 4-3. The boundary area a.
