Meeting 081795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Dr. Soldi felt that the Rural Character Study was a good model for this group to emulate because it did not force solutions upon people but rather provided incentive for them to chose something better. Lee Rafalow commented that it was important to use this process to envision what can be achieved as a community. After the vision has been clarified is the appropriate time to deal with existing limitations. Bob Strayhom requested that everyone keep in mind the overall effect on the entire community not just individual segments. The Rural Character Study was developed as a voluntary program. The intention was to make options available to landowners who were considering developing agricultural land. It was mentioned that at the last meeting there was consensus that everyone wanted 1) value, 2) preservation of rural character and 3) preservation of property rights. It was understood that there could be some inherent conflicts between 2 and 32 but it was important to strive for those goals. Dan Teichman mentioned that the goals from the Rural Character Study were listed in Newsletter #4. Those goals were: Preservation of Agriculture and Managed Forest Land; Protection of Natural and Cultural Resources; Protection of Visual Resources, Orderly Growth, and Flexibility for Land Owners. Those goals could be considered with the intent of determining if they embody rural character for this group. They could be used as a starting place for discussion. Lee Rafalow suggested that he would like this community to retain natural systems wherever they currently exist. For example, on the University Station tract, the preservation of rural character would mean that the natural systems remain the dominant systems. One example of a natural system is creek beds. This would not exclude development but it would be a means to preserve these areas. Clint Burklin indicated that his defination of rural character would be a mosaic of neighborhoods that range from 1 to 5 acres in equal amounts, no strip commercial development on Highway 86 or on I -40 and preserving the streams in their present state. Dean Zehnder hoped that development would be encouraged in such a way as to allow it to remain invisible from the roadways. Maintaining view scapes is necessary for the maintenance of rural character. A lack of urban noises is critical for the successful outcome of this project. It is important to be able to hear the noises which are typical for the changing seasons. Bobby Nicholson mentioned that, although he would like to see a more rural character remain in the Stoney Creek community, the reality he sees is toward controlled growth. The growth that he envisions would preserve the peaceful character of this community with view scapes, wildlife corridors, protected stream banks, etc. He hoped that consensus is reached so that the recommendations forwarded to the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners will hold the power of unanimity. Irene VanDyke indicated that maintaining wildlife corridors was important to her vision for the community. However, the community must financially support the preservation of vistas and not expect others to do it for them. Dan Kenan indicated that cooperation among landowners between Duke Forest along Stoney Creek to the Eno River would preserve a cooridor to the Eno River. The flood plains also need to be protected. Meg McKean stated that this area does not need to bear the burden for every imaginable kind of growth. The design guidelines need to be a part of a larger plan for concentrating additional growth and development near areas which are already densely populated.