Orange County NC Website
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
2 <br /> 6. Discussion Items: <br /> a) Farmland Preservation Subcommittee: The group is continuing to work on the new draft of <br /> our farmland protection plan, to update our existing plan from 2009. We plan to have a <br /> rough version for the APB to review sometime in November. One idea is to plan a stand- <br /> alone meeting when members can just focus on discussing the draft plan. We can aim for <br /> scheduling a working session, possibly in December. An alternative would be to hold this <br /> working session in January, in lieu of our regular meeting. The APB has two parallel tasks: a) <br /> to provide input to the county land use planning process; and b) reviewing our updated <br /> farmland preservation plan. There was general agreement that the first priority is to <br /> formulate/submit APB input for the land use plan, which is time-sensitive. Then we can <br /> focus on the update of the farmland preservation plan, which isn't as critical. There was <br /> interest in doing this via a zoom meeting. An alternative is to hold it in-person with a zoom <br /> room option for those who need that. <br /> b) County Land Use Plan update: Staff shared the most recent presentation from the planning <br /> consultants. This provides four proposed hypothetical alternatives for stakeholders to <br /> review. The consultants attempted to incorporate the three primary goals that came out of <br /> public input: ag/env protection; affordable housing; and climate responsive transportation <br /> and economic development. The four alternatives were ranked in terms of how well each of <br /> the three goals is met. Staff showed the alternatives. The first illustrated the outcome with <br /> a continuation of existing policies. Discussion focused on the three proposed new scenarios. <br /> The second appeared to fail to slow down the large-lot development patterns. Members <br /> observed that in general, none of the alternatives alone were going to address farmland <br /> loss with enough force to make a lasting difference. The conservation development option <br /> didn't seem realistic. Water and sewer/septic are big issues. Nor do the plans appear to give <br /> weight to the cost of community services. Discussion followed. Another challenge is the <br /> gradual retirement of traditional farmers who have large landholdings. Also, there is the <br /> option of trying to match up folks who want to farm with folks who have land that they <br /> aren't using. The best farm preservation outcome will most likely be obtained by merging <br /> different viable components from the three new alternative scenarios to come up with the <br /> APB's own recommendations. <br /> 7. Informational Items/Future Agenda Items: <br /> a. Extension and Ag Economic Development Activities: Ortosky reported that he and Saiers <br /> were going to be serving as panelists on a panel discussion on farmland preservation at the <br /> annual meeting of the NC Chapter of the American Planning Association. The topic will be <br /> planning for agriculture instead of planning around it. Some expressed interest in seeing a <br /> video or summary of the panel. <br /> b. New items: Chatham Co farmland program: We just learned that Chatham County has <br /> decided to utilize their PUV recapture funds to help fund farmland preservation. Wake also <br /> does this now. Having these two neighboring counties using this approach will help with our <br />