Browse
Search
Meeting 121495
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Stoney Creek Work Group
>
Meeting 121495
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 5:18:46 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 11:42:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
M M 7 <br />Michael Warner indicated that discussion centered around the need to protect the wildlife <br />corridor rather than on the appropriate width of the corridor. <br />Judd Edeburn said that from Duke University's standpoint the tract of land to the North of <br />Highway 10 will not receive the same level of protection. He suggested that the stream corridor <br />could be used for a narrower wildlife corridor connecting Stoney Creek and Camp New Hope. <br />Bob Strayhorn said that New Hope Church does not have a stream on it. <br />David Yelton asked what preservation tools would be available using today's standards in the <br />event that Duke chose not to maintain ownership of this land. <br />Judd Edeburn indicated that this planning process will make it easier for Duke to consider <br />preserving the tract to the north of Highway 10. If a sewer line were proposed up Stoney Creek <br />through the forest , then density and future development would become a concern. It is helpful <br />to Duke to know the thinking of the members of this group. The overriding concern is what <br />would water and sewer do to the larger Duke Tract. He did not feel that Duke would reevaluate <br />and put the northern tract back in the long term preservation category. <br />David Yelton asked if there had been discussion about the possibility of damming the creek to <br />create additional ponds or creeks. <br />Clint Burklin replied that the committee did not discuss damming the creeks. He also indicated <br />that the main waterflow is out of the forest not out of the neighborhood. The committee looked <br />primarily at the parcels not developed, although they did not discuss exactly what was meant <br />by protection. Developmental implementation strategies need to be established--that do not <br />create hardships for the landowners. <br />Bob Strayhorn pointed out that the stream that flows into Stoney Creek is going to be protected <br />by a natural corridor because of the floodplain. <br />Clint Burklin mentioned that when the corridor is put at the back of proposed lots the remaining <br />50 -60% is developable even with the current flood plain protection. <br />It was suggested that the words "teaching and research" be added to the text under Resource <br />Areas - Duke Forest. <br />Gene Bell handed out the Conceptual Land Use Plan map. He mentioned that the map defines <br />three land use intensity categories. Those categories are higher, intermediate and lower <br />intensity areas. He pointed out which areas are included in each of the categories. A complete <br />explanation is included in the Preliminary Design Subcommittee Report. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.