Orange County NC Website
STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN <br />RURAL CHARACTER DESIGN SCENARIO <br />PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT <br />Developing an impact assessment for the Rural Character design alternative was complicated by the <br />difficulty in comparing this alternative to the previous designs. The previous three design alternatives <br />(Conventional -II, Density - Neutral and Neo- Traditional) were evaluated in an ordinal manner against each <br />other, and therefore do not relate to the Rural Character alternative. Likewise, the Rural Character impact <br />rankings are difficult to compare to the previous "internal' comparisons. In some cases, comparing the <br />Rural Character alternative to the previous three alternatives is an "apples to oranges" comparison. <br />For these reasons, and the fact that impacts will be evaluated in detail when the final plan is produced, <br />the Rural Character impact assessment is presented in brief narrative form, with an updated summary <br />table. Much of the basic information regarding impact evaluation and significance is covered in detail in <br />the appendix of the students' report, and therefore is not rehashed here. While there are some differences <br />in what impacts are measured against, the previously -used categories of impacts and the methodology of <br />evaluating impacts have been retained for comparison purposes (where such comparisons can be made). <br />Below is the Summary of Impacts table presented by the students, with Rural Character impacts added.' <br />SUMMARY OF IMPACTS <br />,...:.:.; ........::...: <br />.....:.:::.::::.:::.:....:... : ::.:::: :.:.. :..:...:.: <br />,.:. . <br />Conventional.:.: <br />.. . <br />(Seenaric� ;2) <br />I�enszt .....:< >: >:: <br />Neuiral <br />>.<.::< :.;:.;.:::...:. > .;::..' <br />Teo Traditional <br />.::.......... <br />Character <br />Stormwater pollution <br />LOW <br />LOW <br />HIGH <br />LOW <br />NPS pollution <br />LOW <br />LOW <br />HIGH <br />LOW <br />Sedimentation and <br />Erosion <br />LOW <br />MEDIUM <br />HIGH <br />LOW to <br />MEDIUM <br />Wildlife Habitat <br />MEDIUM <br />LOW <br />HIGH <br />LOW <br />Natural Character <br />MEDIUM <br />LOW <br />HIGH <br />LOW <br />Historic Resources <br />HIGH <br />MEDIUM <br />LOW <br />LOW <br />Water Service <br />LOW <br />MEDIUM <br />HIGH <br />MEDIUM <br />Sewer Service <br />NONE <br />NONE <br />HIGH <br />MEDIUM <br />Ground Water <br />MEDIUM <br />MEDIUM <br />LOW <br />MEDIUM <br />Septic Disposal <br />LOW <br />MEDIUM <br />LOW <br />MEDIUM <br />Transportation <br />LOW <br />LOW <br />MEDIUM <br />NOT EVAL. <br />Air Quality <br />LOW <br />LOW <br />LOW <br />NOT EVAL. <br />Schools <br />MEDIUM <br />MEDIUM <br />HIGH <br />MED/HIGH <br />Public Safety <br />MEDIUM <br />MEDIUM <br />HIGH <br />MEDIUM <br />1 - The students ordinal level of impact (LOW /MEDIUM /HIGH) were developed relevant to the other two student <br />alternatives, and thus are not relative to the later - developed Rural Character alternative. The Rural Character <br />impacts shown in the table are evaluated against the status quo, rather than evaluating against a mix of the <br />three very different student alternatives, or individual alternatives with internally - relative rankings. <br />