Browse
Search
APB agenda 112701
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Agricultural Preservation Board
>
Agendas
>
2001
>
APB agenda 112701
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2018 2:13:58 PM
Creation date
5/10/2018 2:13:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/27/2001
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
04 <br />Possible Course of Action <br />1. Recommend that funds for 2002 -03 go toward acquisition of conservation <br />easements for willing sellers in the Upper Eno, Back Creek, and Cane Creek <br />watersheds. <br />2. Pursue Clean Water Management Trust Fund project and Farmland <br />Preservation Trust Fund if available. <br />3. Complete identification of Agricultural Priority Areas (using new mapping) by <br />December 31, 2001. Use this to help evaluate candidate sites and make final <br />recommendations in early 2002. <br />4. If possible, work toward building on critical mass of protected lands /protected <br />farmlands. <br />Stancil suggested that if the APB might consider going ahead with their <br />recommendations to the BOCC at the October meeting. Comments need only <br />be three or four bullets saying where the APB thinks the County should focus <br />conservation funding and activities for 2002 -2003. Staff to provide copy of <br />previous year's recommendation. <br />Discussion of these topics followed: <br />• Requirements of the LLP concerning BOCC parameters for this program with <br />the intent for general guidelines instead of requirements <br />• Lands Legacy program has preference to preservation regarding farmland <br />easement in Voluntary Agriculture Districts but not a requirement —which <br />would encourage more agricultural districts <br />• Transfer versus purchase of development rights on farmland <br />• Try to incorporate horse – Equine farm operations into our farmland <br />preservation programs including VADs <br />• Encourage continuation of farming <br />• Taking action before opportunities are lost <br />• Paying on installments instead of paying total price upfront <br />• Consider 10 year project plan <br />• Lower acreage amounts for Voluntary Agricultural Districts <br />ITME #6: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION <br />a. Update on Farmland Mapping Project/Ag Priority Areas <br />Stancil reported that ERCD is continuing the work with Farm <br />Service Agency staff and Soil & Water to develop our first farmland mapping in <br />the county. Once the maps are completed, the APB can begin to evaluate <br />potential farmland preservation properties based on the criteria adopted and the <br />quality of farmland. <br />Draft September 19, 2001 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.