Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board <br /> Approved Meeting Summary: March 15t", 2023 <br /> ***Bonnie Davis Center*** <br /> 6:30 p.m. <br /> Members Present: Compton, Fickle, Hooten, Hughes, McAdams, McKnight, McPherson, Myers, Saiers, <br /> Sykes, Taylor, Wagger, Woods <br /> Members Absent: None Guests: None <br /> Staff: Jessica Perrin, Resource Conservation Coordinator, Soil and Water; Mike Ortosky, Community & <br /> Rural Development Agent, Extension, and Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Coordinator, DEAPR <br /> 1. Call to order: Chair McKnight called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. <br /> 2. Chair Comments/Introductions: None <br /> 3. Considerations of Additions to Agenda: None <br /> 4. Meeting Summary/Minutes: Hughes moved to approve the meeting summary, seconded by <br /> McPherson; motion passed <br /> 5. Items for Decision: None <br /> 6. Discussion Items: <br /> a) Farmland Preservation Subcommittee presentation and update: Saiers provided an <br /> overview of the progress and activities of the group. Members see a need for our updated <br /> Farmland Protection Plan to dovetail into the updating of the county's big comprehensive <br /> plan update process that is just getting started. Also, the data that Dana Hall is now <br /> updating for the PUV program will complement the data that we're already working on. <br /> Saiers then provided a brief update of the progress being made by the subcommittee, with <br /> some discussion about the growing sense of the importance of doing a new farm survey to <br /> get current data for this project and for our update of the Farmland Protection Plan. <br /> Ortosky reported on his conversation with Dr. Boys at NCSU about having them work with <br /> us on doing such a survey; there was definitely interest. <br /> b) Feedback from Annual Report Presentation to BOCC: Saiers then related that her report <br /> was favorably received, with interest shown by various members. There was some <br /> discussion of the role of the Rural Buffer and whether or not that has worked as a farmland <br /> protection tool. There is a general perception that the buffer is an active tool for farmland <br /> preservation, when in fact it may be inadvertently driving a lot of large-lot subdivision <br /> development. Cost data might help demonstrate to the BOCC the value of farmland and the <br />