Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11) <br /> a TA\ -1 <br /> 204 b) Existing conditions also identified and evaluated included <br /> the natural environment and constraints or opportunities <br /> posed by the conditions to growth. These areas included: <br /> - flood prone areas <br /> - steep slopes (> 15%) <br /> - poor soils <br /> severe percolation problems <br /> shallow depth to groundwater or bedrock <br /> poor load bearing capacity <br /> high plasticity (shrink/swell) <br /> c) Existing population patterns were determined by a count <br /> and identification of the location of dwellings in the <br /> land use survey. For this purpose, the township was <br /> divided into four parts using the main roads as dividing <br /> lines. The proportional distribution of dwelling unit <br /> distribution is as follows: <br /> North = 15% <br /> South = 42% <br /> East = 17% <br /> West = 26% <br /> (2) Trends <br /> Bell summarized development trends within the Township. <br /> Housing stock increased by almost one-third (576 units to <br /> 763) during the period 1980-85. <br /> Subdivided lots less than ten acres in size equaled 144 with <br /> an additional 84 lots in 1986. The distribution of these <br /> lots is north 11%, south 52%, east 21% and west 16%. <br /> During the period 1981-85, 15% of the land under Agriculture <br /> Use Value Taxation south of NC 57 and Guess Road was <br /> withdrawn from the program. <br /> Population increase from 1980-85 was 477 people or a 32% <br /> increase over 1980. The 1990 projection is slightly over <br /> 2300 residents in Little River Township or a 57% increase <br /> over 1980. This indicates that residential development has <br /> been the dominant form of development in Little River since <br /> 1980 and the majority of this development has been <br /> concentrated in the southern part of the township. <br /> (3) Residents Preferences/Concerns <br /> In an effort to determine the preferences and concerns of <br /> township residents, a questionnaire was distributed in <br /> December 1986. Returns were low (only 9) so an effort was <br /> made again in January 1987. The final tally was only 22 <br /> returns which . was insufficient to base hard and fast <br /> assumptions on, but the results were used as much as <br /> possible. Those concerns identified as problems by 2/3 or <br /> more of the respondents and used when drawing up the Draft <br />