APB agenda 021903 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5. Enterprise Zones — The description of this tool specifies an "economically distressed, distinct geographical area of a county, city, or town as designated by the Governor." While there are areas of Orange County that could benefit from investments in economic development, fortunately there are none that qualify as "economically distressed" and this tool is not appropriate. However, reanalysis of the EDD districts could provide a similar effect. 6. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) — TDR has been discussed for many years as a tool for managing and directing growth in Orange County. Originally it was thought that special legislation would be required, but recent investigation suggests such may not be the case. What is needed, however, are sending (rural) areas from which density can be transferred; receiving (urban) areas where it can be absorbed; and an "accounting" mechanism to manage the buying and selling of development rights. Essential to making the concept a reality is strong intergovernmental cooperation (i.e., partnerships)! 7. Partnerships* - The best known example of a partnership in Orange County is the Joint Planning Agreement with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Currently under discussion are cooperative agreements with Hillsborough and Durham. Intergovernmental cooperation must be an integral part of any program attempting to manage and guide growth around the high growth pressure area of rurallurban fringe. 8. Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)* - The Orange County - Chapel Hill- Carrboro Joint Planning process employs the concept of a UGB. It has been very effective in limiting the extension of urban infrastructure (and the sprawl that would follow) into rural areas. A UGB around Hillsborough (Efland, Mebane, and Durham to a lesser extent) is essential if efforts at reducing sprawl can also focus rural growth arei to successful. Interim Growth Boundaries ( ) term infrastructure. Table 2 on page 3a gives a subjectiv assessment challenges. ft the effectiveness of the above tools in addressing the growth management III. Planning Staf` Recommended Strategy To provide a starting point for CPLUC discussion, Planning staff proposes the following three -part strategy for the structure of a new plan to address the County's growth management challenges: 1. Reduced residential densities (and more open space) in the rural areas; 2. Major subdivisions limited to areas with urban infrastructure with low - density minor subdivisions and open nt r m and ultimate. 4. 3. A clearly defined urban growth boundary, 4. Sustainable minimum lot size based on 1996 USGS Water - Resources Investigations Report 96 -4220. These recommendations were incorporated in the PowerPoint presentation at the August 19 CPLUC meeting. Ica I ,"t