Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-10-1994
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Agenda - 08-10-94 Special Mtg.
>
Agenda - 08-10-1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2016 12:02:24 PM
Creation date
3/2/2016 11:54:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/10/1994
Meeting Type
Special Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Agenda - 06-28-1994-IX-B
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1990's\1994\Agenda - 06-28-94 Regular Mtg.
Minutes - 19940810
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
TABLE 2.2.30 <br /> COMPARISON OF AGRICULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE RANKINGS <br /> FOR SELECTED ORANGE COUNTY FARMS <br /> Rank When Farms... <br /> Township Change in <br /> Farm Location Farther from Closer to Rank <br /> Urban Area Urban Area <br /> Mangum Little River 1 1 None <br /> Latta Cedar Grove 2 _ 3 -1 <br /> Snipes Bingham 3 4 -1 <br /> Walters Cedar Grove 4 2 +2 <br /> 1 Nutter Bingham 5 6 -1 <br /> Shambley Cheeks 6 7 -1 <br /> Strayhorn Chapel Hill 7 9 -2 <br /> Stroud Bingham 8 8 None <br /> Nichols Cedar Grove 9 10 -1 <br /> ' Rogers Cedar Grove 10 11 -1 <br /> Hogan Chapel Hill 11 5 +6 <br /> Lloyd Cheeks 12 12 None <br /> From the standpoint of acquiring development rights, the real implication of the use of rankings <br /> is in etermining how to expend limited funds.For example,if funds were available to purchase the rights <br /> on s' farms, and more points were awarded to farms farther from urban areas, the Mangum, Latta, <br /> Snip s,Walters, Nutter,and Shambley farms would be considered.If more points were awarded to farms <br /> close to urban areas, only one change would result - the Hogan farm would replace the Shambley farm <br /> in be g considered for acquisition of development rights. <br /> 1 <br /> ' Awarding more points to farms farther from urban areas is more in keeping with the intent of the <br /> pro am - farmland preservation. In such locations, more farms are likely to be found in close proximity, <br /> allo g a "critical mass" of farmland to be preserved with fewer nuisance complaints. In the case of the <br /> Ho farm, it is located in and surrounded by an area designated for future urban development in the <br /> Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Even if development rights on <br /> all or a portion of the farm were acquired, it is questionable whether the farm would survive when <br /> surrounded by such development. <br /> Another example of the use of the LESA system for this purpose involves the three study farms <br /> located in Bingham Township. Whereas the maps derived previously may help in targeting the Snipes, <br /> Nutter, and Stroud farms as critical farmland, only through the evaluation of each site can guidance be <br /> obtaMed regarding the order of development rights acquisition.Through the scoring aspects of the system, <br /> a det rmination can be made to acquire from Snipes first, Nutter second,and then Stroud. This assumes, <br /> of course, that all three owners have offered to sell their development rights. <br /> 2.2.41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.