Browse
Search
Meeting 030496
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Stoney Creek Work Group
>
Meeting 030496
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 4:55:27 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 11:37:19 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
Dl� r <br />(.1.j is <br />STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP <br />FEBRUARY 28, 1996 <br />MINUTES <br />The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, February 28, 1996 at 7:30 PM in <br />the Orange County Planning and Agriculture Center at 306F Revere Road in 1- Iillsborou,11. <br />.NIEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Strayhorn, James Bumphus, Judd Edeburn, Clint Burklin, Lee Rafalow, <br />Meg McKean, Dan Teichman. Elio Soldi, Curtis Bane, and Dean Z;:hnder. <br />,NIENIBERS ABSENT: Bob Hall, David Yelton, Steve Price. Keith Cook, Bobb,:- Nicholson, Trudy Cuffe, <br />Gary Hanker, Michael `Varner, Bill Bracey, Renee Price, Stephen Halkiotis, and Don IX'illhoit. <br />STAFF PRESENT: Gene Bell, Planner III <br />FACILITATOR PRESENT: Verla Insko <br />CALL TO ORDER: The meeting commenced at 7:40 in the absence of a quorum. <br />REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL AND DISCUSSION: Gene Bell announced that the <br />Implementation Strategy Subcommittee met on February 15 and handed out a listing (attached) of recommendations <br />resulting from that meeting. He began reviewing the recommendations item -by -item. There were no questions on <br />the first three items. <br />Item 4 <br />Judd: Thinks it might be problematic if other small area plans were done and they expressed desire to transfer <br />density out of their areas; might tend to be shifted to areas not as well organized or governed by a small area plan. <br />Dan: Could be a problem after many (10 or 12) small area plans done. <br />Lee: Has given some thought to issue. Thinks County will have to take on task of creating sending and receiving <br />zone districts. Sees our group as pioneering the effort. <br />Clint: Reminder that pumpkin and rust are receiving areas. <br />Bob: Whether market Nvill support buying and selling rights in this area remains to be seen. <br />Curtis: This is reason he suggested a private group (listed further down in report) to monitor transfer of rights. <br />Dan: If we don't make a proposal, market won't have any reason to even try it. After trying, we'll find out if we're <br />successful. <br />Bob: What we're after is a method of creating open space. Remains to be seen whether practical or not for the <br />Stoney Creek area. Transfers in area would not be as affordable as buying somewhere else and bringing them in. <br />Elio: This does create an option and doesn't take anything away. Thinks larger market desirable. Initiatives like <br />Stoney Creek may lead to creation of a larger market eventually. Feels this is a positive approach. <br />Bob: Not putting County money in it which is the only way he feels it will work; is a business transaction between <br />buyer and seller. <br />Elio: An the bigger the market becomes, the more effective it will become. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.