Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
142 <br /> was written in 1981. is still relevant. It defines very well <br /> the intent and purpose of the Rural Buffer. Policies 2 and 5 <br /> speaks to prohibiting conflicting uses and maintaining the <br /> "residential and agricultural" character of the Rural Buffer. <br /> Goals 1 and 3. though quite general in scope. are consistent 4 <br /> with the intent and purposes of the Rural Buffer. Objective <br /> 2 specifically addresses the northern portion of the Rural <br /> Buffer in a straight-forward manner. Proposal 1. like Policy <br /> 1, addresses very well the purpose and intent of the Rural <br /> Buffer. It also defines the geographical boundaries. <br /> Proposal 4 addresses the large lot and low density <br /> objectives. but diverges somewhat in emphasizing cluster <br /> development. Finally. Standards 1 and 4 address the two acre <br /> minimum lot size succinctly. <br /> Issue 2 is stated somewhat generally and is addressed in <br /> the same fashion. Goal 1 is relevant if given a very liberal <br /> interpretation. Goal 3 is a little more specific although it <br /> still deals in generalities. <br /> Issues 3 and 4 are not addressed. It is questionable <br /> whether they should be considered under LAND USE. They are <br /> probably more appropriately addressed under HEALTH & SAFETY., <br /> Issue 5 is addressed fairly well. Proposal 1 defines <br /> the Rural Buffer and clearly states that Duke Forest is part <br /> of it. Proposal 4 is direct and to-the-point in that Duke is <br /> a component of the Rural Buffer and should be preserved. <br /> Issue 6 is not addressed. It is questionable whether it <br /> is a relevant issue. <br /> Issue 7 is addressed very well by Objective 1 and <br /> Standard 4 . Proposal 1 is also relevant if water and sewer <br /> lines is read into the rather general term of "urban <br /> services" . <br />