Agenda - 05-06-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The Committee does recognize that there are special areas within rural Orange County that are significant wildlife habitats or natural areas where endangered fauna and flora exist. For the purposes of this document, these sites are documented in two works: the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats in Orange County, and the Inventory of Sites of Cultural Historic Unincorporated Portions of Orange County. Given the importance of these sites, two other protection measures have been recommended by the Committee for use herein. These measures can be found in IV. PROTECTION OF RECOGNIZED NATURAL AREAS. 3. Growth Management One of the primary functions of the Rural Buffer concept in the existing JPA and Use Plan is to serve as a growth management tool. With the presence of a number of growth factors and development pressures in southern Orange, the JPA Plan has attempted to head off rampant suburbanization and urban sprawl by encouraging an infill policy for the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and by designating that outside of Transition Areas, current rural areas in the buffer will remain so in the future. This is accomplished largely through zoning of the Rural Buffer at a flat two -acre minimum lot size. The thrust of the Rural Character Study's work in this area has been the identification of different and sometimes innovative development options that do not compromise the concept of the Rural Buffer as a growth management tool. In hearing from Rural Buffer residents on the Committee and in meeting with other residents, the byword most often heard is flexibility. The two -acre lot size, while certainly accomplishing some of its goals, has not in itself created a Rural Buffer. In fact, if left in its current inflexible state, there is no real incentive to preserve either resources or open space. The possibility of a large, low density suburb is a real possibility over time. In addition, the current standards do not allow much flexibility for property owners wishing to subdivide their land. The doubled lot size has made subdividing lots for children or others infeasible for many landowners. Once again, the'strategies set forth by the Committee in this document are inter - related and interdependent. All of these conceppts have at their base a desire to continue serving as a growtI� management tool. They do, however, try to find other ways of meeting these goals that might provide land owners some relief and at the same time encourage (through incentives) the provision of open space, natural areas and farms. In this sense, the entire document is a policy statement on growth management strategies. 5