Meeting 012596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

required that he leave the meeting at this time. REVIEW OF REVISED CONCEPT PLAN Gene Bell began by saying the Preliminary Design subcommittee met on January 4 to review concept plan presented on December 14 and worked on revisions /refinements suggested at that time. An issue the subcommittee discussed at length was providing a linkage between the New Hope and Stoney Creek drainage basins. Corridors along streams such as New Hope and Stoney Creeks serve as "natural highways" for the movement of wildlife. For wildlife traveling from one drainage basin to another, sparsely developed areas and ridge lines take on added significance. The southern tip of the Stoney Creek planning area which borders the ridge separating the two drainage basins and also lies adjacent to the largely undeveloped Camp New Hope lands offers opportunities for inter - basin travel of wildlife. While there is development on the land between this area and Stoney Creek, it is relatively sparse and on large lots and tracts. Also, considerable vegetative cover continues to exist on these properties. This area has been designated on the map to recognize its significance. The recommended approach to protecting the area is to educate property owners about its significance and encourage them to provide an extra layer of protection by granting conservation easements to an organization such as the Triangle Land Conservancy; the intent is not to impose additional ordinance or governmental restrictions. The area is shown as an overlay and covers slightly over 200 acres. Clint Burklin gave additional details on the subcommittee's deliberations regarding the proposed connection. Steve Price added additional clarification. David Yelton pointed out that this area did not seem to have the same significance as the corridor along Stoney Creek. Burklin agreed. Curtis Bane asked if this proposal would add any additional restrictions. Burklin pointed out that this was not the intent. Bob Strayhorn said the corridor was probably wider than it needed to be to serve any purpose. David Yelton questioned the rationale for trying to connect the two drainage basins. Judd Edeburn stated it might be valid from a biological standpoint, but probably not from a practical one. Dan Kenan said providing connections like this were useful, especially where habitat destruction takes place (fire /storm) and wildlife can use the connection to access other areas. He added Z