Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br /> The study being conducted by the U. S. Geological Survey will provide <br /> information through which to evaluate groundwater yield and impacts of <br /> development. That study is due to be completed in one year <br /> • Competing Goals: The goals of farmland and forestland preservation may <br /> compete with each other in terms of where to locate housing units. <br /> There will be instances where, because of the location and types of resources, <br /> goals are in competition. Each site's resources must be evaluated carefully to <br /> determine which goal should have priority, e.g., a stand of mature hardwoods <br /> vs. a stand of 10 year old pines or prime farmland vs. other land Where <br /> resources are equal, the design may seek to balance resource preservatton while <br /> attempting to locate housing units in the least intrusive manner possible. <br /> BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APRIL 1, 1996 MEETING: At its April 1, <br /> 1996 meeting, the Board of Commissioners offered the following comments. Staff <br /> comments as provided at the meeting are highlighted in italics <br /> • Design Guidebook: Provide copies of the Design Guidebook for review and <br /> comment as soon as possible but no later than the Board's May 14 meeting. <br /> Provide copies to the Planning Board for comment, preferably before <br /> presenting to the Board of Commissioners. <br /> • Relationship of Goals to Open Space Percentages: Whether 33% or 501/6 <br /> is applied is somewhat arbitrary unless you know how the percentage relates <br /> to a specific goal. It appeared by the vote of some of the dissenting members <br /> of the Planning Board that the open space percentage would serve as a <br /> surrogate for density. Density is best addressed through zoning, because the <br /> off-site impacts of development are the same whether open space is preserved <br /> or not. Not sure what open space percentage should be if try to relate to <br /> goals. <br /> Concern of the Planning Board with density appeared to be with case where <br /> 50% of the land consisted of unbuildable areas (floodplains, etc.) and only <br /> 33% open space required. Would result in greater density, particularly when <br /> density bonuses were allowed for providing more than 33%open space. <br /> Two Commissioners expressed no desire to change the percentage of open <br /> space(e.g., 33%) as contained in the proposal. <br /> • Groundwater Concerns: Appears that both the Planning Board and <br /> Commissioners have concerns about groundwater resources that could be <br /> addressed partially by the groundwater report being prepared by the USGS. <br /> There were also concerns about alternative and community systems, and the <br /> need to work out the rest of the monitoring program. Given these concerns, <br />