Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-16-2008-3
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2008
>
Agenda - 06-16-2008
>
Agenda - 06-16-2008-3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2008 2:16:55 PM
Creation date
8/28/2008 9:20:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/16/2008
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
3
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20080616 - Transfer Station
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />DRAFT <br />4 <br />Definition: Historic and Archaeological Sites [includes cultural] - As defined in the Open <br />Space Standards of the Orange County Subdivision. Regulations (Section IV-C.3b.) in the <br />following manner: [Those properties] "listed on the National Register of Historic Places or <br />included on the state's national register study list, designated as a local historic landmark, <br />designated as a local historic district, and/or identified as having a high potential for <br />archaeological remains as part o: <br />- The "Chapel Hill Township Architectural Survey: Final Report" (1992); <br />- The "Orange County Multiple Property Documentation Form: Historic Resources <br />of Orange County"(1993); <br />- "An Archaeological Survey of Portions of Orange County, N. C."; <br />- Land Use Element (LUE) [2.2.49] <br />Source: Land Use Element (LUE) [1981] -Primary Conservation Area -Historic and <br />Archaeological sites including: <br />- sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places; <br />- sites included on the State's National Register study list; <br />- sites designated as a local historic landmark; <br />- areas designated as a local historic district; and <br />- areas identified as having a high potential for archaeological remains.. <br />Sites with County Owned Lands or Easements Designated for Preservation <br />Fi ure 8~ <br />Definition: County-owned lands acquired for parks andJor nature preserves -Lands that <br />have been purchased by the County through the Lands Legacy Program (or other <br />mechanism) for the protection of natural and cultural resources and as future park sites. <br />These sites may have an approved Master Plan or Preliminary Concept Plan (for parks) or <br />Stewardship Plan (for nature preserves). <br />Site(s) with deed restriction or with permanent conservation .easements will be excluded. <br />Chair Jacobs asked what function the second sentence serves because these sites: may <br />have approved concept plans or approved preliminary concept plans for parks or stewardship <br />plans for nature preserves, or they may not have plans, but the purposes for which. the County <br />acquired them have already been defined. <br />Gwen Harvey said that this was a staff composition on this definition. Craig Benedict said <br />that it was a compilation of staff input, but if the sentence were taken out, it would still be <br />controlled by why the Board of County Commissioners purchased this property. He said that this <br />criterion can survive without the second sentence. <br />The Board agreed to remove this sentence. <br />Ed Schuffler showed Composite 9 (Figures 1-8). He said that this map is what Olver, Inc. <br />recommends that the County proceed with, based on the exclusionary criteria. <br />Chair Jacobs made reference to criterion#3, and the actions associated with that, <br />regarding removing railway access from consideration. He said that at least one advisory board <br />and one citizen advocated for rail access and he did not want to leave it unaddressed. <br />Bob Sallach said that they ran some numbers and rail only becomes cost-effective if you <br />are trying to transport the waste a distance greater than 250 miles. He said that the distance is <br />not great enough to justify the rail aspect as an exclusionary criterion. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.