Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-27-1995 - C-6
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1995
>
Agenda - 11-27-95
>
Agenda - 11-27-1995 - C-6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2015 4:20:53 PM
Creation date
1/12/2015 4:18:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/27/1995
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
C-6
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19951127
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
2119 <br /> • Scenic views, especially of natural and cultural features from designated scenic road corridors, <br /> including"views from the road"as well as views outward fmm potential home sites. Landscape buffers <br /> which screen the view of development and preserve the character of rural public roads are also <br /> included in this category. <br /> Secondary Conservation Areas may be comprised of any of the remaining open space uses identified above,and, <br /> unless specified otherwise, receive full credit toward meeting the minimum open space requirement in Flexible <br /> Developments. <br /> Comment: The distinction between "Primary"and'Secondary"Conservation Areas cited above is based generally <br /> on the system advocated by Randall Arendt in the Sussex County, Delaware open space design <br /> guidebook. A similar methodology was used by the University Station Planning Group in attempting <br /> to define open space areas. The list of features which form the basis of defining Conservation Areas <br /> is also based on the recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee as well as the model <br /> provisions of the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Land Preservation District. <br /> Arendt's approach is to set aside Primary Conservation Areas first, since such features are considered <br /> unbuildable for legal or practical reasons. In addition to wetlands and jloodplains, he suggests that <br /> the following features be included as part of designated Primary Conservation Areas: <br /> • Slopes of greater than 25`6; <br /> • State-listed habitats of threatened or endangered species; and/or <br /> • National Register sites (improved or renovated with federal funding)and locally designated <br /> historic districts. <br /> Slopes of 15% to 25%, natural areas, wildlife habitats and corridors, and historic and archaeological <br /> sites would thus be classified as Secondary Conservation Areas. <br /> One difference between the Arendt approach and the Flexible Development proposal is that all habitats <br /> and corridors as identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats have been <br /> categorized as Primary Conservation Areas. Of 64 sites identified in the Inv�torv. only eight contain <br /> threatened or endangered species. The inclusion of all sites as Primary Conservation Areas recognizes <br /> the limited number of such features as well as their diversity and significance. <br /> Another difJ`erenee involves historic and archaeological sites. Recent inventories have identified 649 <br /> historic sites, including sir National Register sites and 41 National Register study list sites. Of the <br /> study list sites, three are potential historic districts, and one is an archaeological site. No local <br /> historic district or landmark designations have been made. The inclusion of such sites as Primary <br /> Conservation Ar+erst recognizes thuar existing or potential significance. <br /> The inclusion of scenic new of preserved features, e.g., farmland and water bodies, as well as <br /> landscape buffers to screen the view of development from public roads is based on Arendt's approach <br /> to defining Secondary Conservation Areas. <br /> The provisions regarding active recreation sites have been included, in part, since the approach is <br /> consistent with the recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee.It is also consistent with <br /> the general recommendations of Randall Arendt; e.g., not more than 50 percent of active recreation <br /> areas should be counted. Then are four"community pawls"(25 acres/48`,6 active recreation)and jour <br /> "district parks"(75 acres/16% active recreation)proposed in the Master Recreation and Parrs Plan. <br /> These parts will occupy 400 acres or 1/10th of one percent of the total county laird area. In <br /> comparison, the network of natural areas and wildlife corridors shown in Section 1 would encompass <br /> 21,147 acres or 8.3 percent of the county land area. <br /> Flexible Development 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.