HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC agenda 042599 AGENDA
Orange County
Historic Preservation Commission
Wednesday, August 25 , 1999
7 : 00 p . m .
Planning and Ag Center Conference Room JJ
306 Revere Road
Hillsborough , NC
7 : 00 I . Call to Order
7 : 00 II . Additions to the Agenda
7 : 05 III . Approval of Minutes (July 14 , 1999 )
7 : 10 Iv . Chair Comments
7 : 15 v . Consideration of Priority List - Local
Landmark and National Register
Each year, the HPC reviews the priority list for these two
initiatives and identifies projects to pursue . A copy of the
lists are provided as Attachment 1 .
7 : 45 vI . Criteria Thoughts for Lands Legacy
Program
As per a June memo , the HPC is asked to provide input
on the types of priorities and criteria that should be
incorporated into the Orange Lands Legacy program , to
be developed in September . Please see Attachment 2 .
8 : 15 vII . Priorities for Remainder of 1999
Due to staff shortages , the HPC may wish to prioritize
activities it wishes to pursue , consistent with the
Commissioner's goals ( see Attachment 3 ) , for the
remainder of 1999
8 : 30 IX . Adjournment
001
DRAFT 1
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JULY 1491999
Members Present: Tom Allison, Chair
Jean Anderson
Carolyn Conner
Robert Rich
Members Absent . Rachel Gaya
Staff Present. Don Belk, Preservation Planner
Carol Crawford, Administrative Assistant
Public Present: Dr. Linda Stine
Geoff Henry
Nets Anderson
La Donna Vieweg
AGENDA ITEM # I : CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Allison called the meeting to order at approximately 7000 p .m .
AGENDA ITEM #2 : CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
Staff requested to add to the agenda a discussion of the potential designation of Montrose and Cane
Roberts House .
i
Staff also reported that at the next meeting of August 25th, David Stanch will discuss the Land
Acquisition Program .
AGENDA ITEM #3 : APPROVAL OF MAY 26, 1999 MINUTES
Two corrections were noted for staff.
MOTION : Anderson moved to approve the minutes for May 26 , 1999 .
VOTE : Unanimous .
AGENDA ITEM #4 : CHAIR COMMENTS
Chairman Allison welcomed presenters and guests to the meeting .
• THE PUBLIC
AGENDA ITEM #5 . COM
MENTS FROM T
Last Updated 08/09/99
002
DRAFT 2
AGENDA ITEM #6 : PRESENTATIONS : ST . MARY' S ROAD CORRIDOR PRESERVATION
PLAN
Geoff Henry, Architectural Historian and Linda Stine, Archeologist presented reports on the architectural and
archeological surveys of the St. Mary ' s Road corridor .
Mr. Henry displayed a map of the St. Mary' s Road area with outline of the proposed boundaries for possible
designation of the historic district. Followed by description of background work of the architectural history
component that had been done was :
1 - Update the 1992 survey of St. Mary' s Road Corridor, which involved visiting SHIPO in Raleigh to collect
information from that survey and to field check that information, for current verification . He noted that some
buildings had been altered or destroyed.
2- Survey seven properties that were not originally included in 1992 information. Noting that within the study
corridor there are two locations already on the National Register of Historic Places, being St. Mary ' s Episcopal
Church and Maple Hill Farm . Also noted were two properties that were put on the NC Study List, being the Cain-
Roberts House and the Gosling Log House .
Henry reported he had photographed each house, drew site plans , performed title searches , and talked to owners
trying to gather as much history as possible .
He noted the purpose was to determine if the whole area would qualify for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places as a rural historic district as set out in the guidelines of the National Register of Historic Places .
A rural historic district is a collection of houses, structures, road patterns, cemeteries , and foundations , which
contribute to the character as being an agricultural area. The boundaries for a potential historic district are not just
property boundaries, or following the road and buildings on either side . You should also take into account patterns
of land use, distribution of buildings, views of agricultural areas to tree lines to the mountain in the background.
An assessment as to whether that agricultural area character is intact is needed.
Henry also conferred with Claudia Brown of the State Historic Preservation Office on boundaries of a proposed
historic district. The agricultural character of the area is rapidly changing with several equestrians operations
beginning to replace farmland. Ultimately the conclusion is that the area does qualify. The boundaries proposed
include the area from St. Mary ' s Episcopal Church over to Sunnyside home of Capt. John Berry, who built the
courthouse in Hillsborough. Some of the boundary lines are based on the natural formations, such as a stream,
treeline, or mountain to fit the overall character of the historic district.
LaDonna Vieweg, land owner of Lot 6 Martin Hills, asked if her property might be investigated to be included as
they may have part of the old trading path trench and that the adjoining property has a very old log cabin intact.
Henry will investigate that area. It was also noted that the area surrounding the Lipscomb Church has historic
character.
Allison questioned the need to pursue a district nomination, as there seems to be more non-contributing structures in
a district this size . Henry estimated that there are about fifty percent of non-contributing structures in this district.
He noted that the National Register prefers 30-35 % non-contributing properties . Another nomination, called a
multiple resource nomination, was discussed. The HPC concluded with the preference to preserve the whole
environment included in the boundary as proposed.
Ms . Vieweg questioned what the restrictions would be for property owners, if placed in the historic district. Staff
explained that some measures that could impact property owners might be design or building restrictions on certain
areas, tax breaks for certain types of donations of easements and historic restorations . Another benefit from a
historic district could be the closer reviewing the historic recognition when planning for highway improvements .
Staff reviewed Henry ' s report by saying there is a potential of National Register of Historic District along the
described boundaries , an additional seven properties that will be added to the county ' s data base, the final product to
Last Updated 08/09/99
003
DRAFT 3
the county will include those files to be shared with the HPC at that time and, the proposal to the State Historic
Preservation Office to have this district placed on the study list as St. Mary ' s Road/Trading Path Historic Corridor .
Henry explained that the study list is the first tier of the process , then if approved, followed by nomination
preparation, public hearings and fine tunings of the boundaries .
Dr. Linda Stine gave a report of archeological survey progress . It was noted that Tom Magnuson was apparently
attempting to connect the different parts of the old Indian Trading Path, in neighboring counties . Dr. Stine
displayed old trading path maps from the 1700 ' s and, reported that she had worked with Dan Simpkins of LNC in
the 1980s who had attempted to put together where the path went all the way to Petersburg ' s trading area on the
James River. The maps of then and now are so different it is impossible to just point out where the path actually
went. There are some identifying landmarks such as Mt. Misery, quarry, log cabins , mills , with archeological
findings that indicate the location of the old trading path . There was a discussion about a study that produced the
Markum Map that is in the Register of Deeds, which concluded from research of the Granville Grants . Some maps
showed old road and new road designations , it was noted that the road moved due to the river changing and seasons
of wet, frozen temperatures caused the ruts of the road to become impassible . Another effect was many settlers
having m,ills on the Eno River causing many paths over the years instead of one pathway. It was noted that aerial
and topo maps are used to determine the remnants of the older path . The 1891 Tate map provided information for a
couple of archeological sites , one being the Jackson Shop .
Allison questioned if Stine thought there is qualifications for a historical site based on the archeological findings .
Stine replied that the process is in the first stage of fmding sites and running out of field time already . There was one
site before she started . We now have two sawmill sites, two quarry sites, the archeological potential of the Caine-
Roberts site ' s buildings and mounds of artifacts and a log cabin site . Photographs were displayed of some of these
areas .
Connor asked if any artifacts had been collected that could be dated. Stine replied yes, that the procedure is to take
pictures at this time .
Staff requested guidance on how to proceed with additional work and areas to focus on from Dr. Stine . Allison
asked if any prehistoric sites were located. Stine replied that prehistoric sites are noticeably absent even though we
know the site was utilized . Tom Hargrove researched the Cates Access on the Eno State Park a few years ago and
found that even in exposed areas he could not find a lot prehistoric items that easily, due to erosion . However, he
found approximately eighty artifacts of Middle Archaic nature . The Eno River area should be rich with these . Stine
requested the Commission ' s desires as to setting boundaries for the archeological research . The HPC concluded that
the research should be closely related to Mr. Henry ' s boundaries of the St. Mary' s Road as the Eno River is not
threatened because of its attention by conservationists to expand the Eno River State Park.
Stine suggested a matrix of all the prehistoric and historic periods and landscape themes as the National Register
prefers good coherent themes of a schematic study enhanced with complimentary archeological resources . A theme
might be " changing social systems over time and space" i . e . , from small little archaic encampments to Indian camp
to settlers homestead/farm to larger plantations to smaller tenant farms . Another theme could be economy
subsistence changes from more subsistence farms, to cash . crops including tobacco as the abundance of tobacco
barns in the area were noted and that chicken houses and dairy farms also indicate ways of life and on to horse
farms of today . Another theme discussed was transportation, which would bring the Eno River into boundary
importance .
The Commission discussed the due dates for the reports being August 15t' because the State Historic Preservation
Office wants the project closed out by September 30t' which is tied to their funding cycle . The reports are submitted
to the State first for their approval before the County sees the end result.
AGENDA ITEM #60 STATUS REPORTS
a. Caine Roberts House
Nels Anderson inquired about information for his property being designated as a local landmark
designation . Staff indicated he would have a strong case to have the Caine Roberts House placed on the
Last Updated 08/09/99
004
DRAFT 4
priority list for consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission . This would enhance the ongoing
historic district designation of the St. Mary ' s Road area . Anderson has the basics of a National Register
Nomination that was started by Betsy Gohdes-Baten several years ago . Mr. Anderson noted that the
nomination was never completed . He also expressed interest to have his property included in a local
preservation designation .
Allison noted that current Local Landmark Designations have previously been on the National Register of
Historic Places . The Commission encouraged Mr . Anderson to go forward with the National Registration
Nomination .
Staff reported another inquiry from Craufurd and Nancy Goodwin who own the Montrose Estate are
interested in being considered for a Local Landmark Designation . The Town Planning Department
recommend the Goodwin ' s call the county . The HPC agreed that the Goodwins should proceed with the
study list process for a National Register Nomination of Historic Places . Staff is to notify and send study
list application to the Goodwins .
b . Maude Faucette House National Register Nomination
Staff reported the Maude Faucette House went before the National Register Advisory committee and we
are waiting to hear from the advisory committee .
c. White Oak Grove School National Register Nomination
Staff reported a call from Claudia Brown that the SHPO has decided that White Oak Grove School is not
eligible because it has been significantly altered . Staff requested a formal letter from the SHPO to the
Commission describing this , which has not arrived . It was noted that Richard Mattson has started his
work and that Mitch Wildes from the Historic Restoration Office took a look at the school and both
agreed the architectural integrity is gone . Claudia Brown suggested that this Commission proceed with a
Local Landmark Designation based on the cultural significance of the property . There is a community
effort to restore the school . Iris Chapman is aware of the developments and wants to meet with us to
decide how to proceed . The HPC discussed having the Matteson contract restructured to have him do the
local landmark designation report to be submitted to the HPC . It was noted that the property does not
have to be on the National Register of Historic Places to qualify to be a Local Landmark Designation .
d . Orange County Architectural History Publication
Belk reported meeting with Barbara Williams and discussed items included in the letter in this agenda
packet including storage of materials . The next step is the newspaper notice to solicit information from
the pubic . Other details pointed out in the letter to be addressed by staff. Anderson noted that an editorial
assistant might do the proofreading . Staff reported that proofreading cost were included in the proposal
as an option . Belk reported he would be turning over to David Stancil the information about the loan
application . Allison noted as the HPC has approved it previously, that the next step was to be submitted to
the BOCC ,
AGENDA ITEM #80 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. HPC Recruitment Advertisement
There are currently four vacancies at this time .
b . Northern Parkway approved (News & Observer, 6/15/99)
Last Updated 08/09/99
DRAFT 5 005
The newspaper article was included as part of the agenda packet and was briefly discussed during the St .
Mary ' s Road topic of the evening noting that if the historic district is listed on the National Register, the
State Department of Transportation would recognize St . Mary ' s Road for more preservation measures .
AGENDA ITEM #8 : ADJOURNMENT
Allison adjourned the meeting at approximately 9000 p .m .
Last Updated 08/09/99
006
1 Attachment 1
ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC SITES
(as of 05/11/99)
LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Site Township Date Listed
Ayr Mount Hillsborough 08/26/71
Moorefields Cheeks 04/25/72
Bingham School Bingham 01 / 18/78
St. Mary's Chapel Eno 07/ 12/78
Paisley-Rice Log House Cheeks 01 /22/79
Chatwood Cheeks 08/04/88
Rigsbee's Rock House Eno 10/20/88
Maple Hill Eno 03 / 17/94
Alexander Hogan Plantation Site ' Chapel Hill 03 /04/96
Cedar Grove Rural Crossroads Historic District Cedar Grove 04/23 /98
Dr. Arch C . Jordan House Little River 08/06/98
Cabe-Pratt-Harris House Eno 04/22/99
LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER STUDY LIST
Site Survey # Township Date Listed
Morris Lloyd Farm OR 1013 Bingham 07/08/93
Maynard Farm OR 0677 Bingham 07/08/93
Sikes House OR 0911 Bingham 07/08/93
White Cross School OR 0923 Bingham 07/08/93
Carr United Methodist Church OR 0671 Cedar Grove 07/08/93
Harmony Baptist Church/Cemetery OR 0778 Cedar Grove 07/08/93
Walter Hawkins Farm OR 1055 Cedar Grove 07/08/93
Nicholas Corbett Hester House OR 0672 Cedar Grove 07/08/93
John Paisley Hughes House OR 0791 Cedar Grove 07/08/93
William Woods McDade Farm OR 1037 Cedar Grove 07/08/93
Pittard Place OR 0829 Cedar Grove 07/08/93
Tally Homeplace OR 0823 Cedar Grove 07/08/93
Rosie Wrenn House OR 0685 Cedar Grove 07/08/93
White Oak Grove School OR 0761 Cedar Grove 10/08/98
Charles Davis Farm OR 0494 Chapel Hill 07/ 11 /91
Bethel Baptist Church OR 0405 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
Cole Farm OR 0371 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
Sam Couch Farm OR 0470 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
William Couch Farm OR 0471 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
Vance Daniel Farm OR 0374 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
Henry Lloyd Farm OR 0440 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
Murphy School OR 0467 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
Neville House OR 0425 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
Bryant Neville Farm OR 0386 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
Pritchard-Poythress Farm OR 0375 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
Smith- Cole House OR 0365 Chapel Hill 07/08/92
Sam and Laura Nunn House OR 0434 Chapel Hill 06/09/93
' archeological site
008
NATIONAL REGISTER STUDY LIST (CONT'D)
Site Survey # TownshiU Date Listed
Maude Faucette House (The Elms) OR 1376 Cheeks 04/09/92
Hall' s Mill Inn (Little Ayr Mount) OR 0869 Cheeks 04/09/92
S . C . Forrest House OR 1021 Cheeks 01 / 12/95
*Benjamin Duke House OR 0666 Eno 07/08/93
Gosling House OR 0652 Eno 07/08/93
Caine Roberts House OR 0673 Eno 07/08/93
Sunnyside OR 0692 Eno 10/ 14/93
*Phelps Farm OR 0667 Hillsborough 07/08/93
Kirkland-Miller Farm OR 1084 Little River 07/08/93
Miller House OR 0929 Little River 07/08/93
Reilly House OR 0690 Little River 07/08/93
* Owner declines
HISTORIC DISTRICTS - NATIONAL REGISTER STUDY LIST
District Survey # Township Date Listed
Ray-Kenion Historic District OR 0734 Cedar Grove 07/ 11 /91
Oaks Rural Historic District n/a2 Bingham 07/08/93
Few' s Ford Archeological District 04/ 14/94
ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC LANDMARKS (LOCAL DESIGNATION)
Pro e Township Date Designated
Bingham School (NR) Bingham 06/22/98
Chatwood (NR) Cheeks 06/22/98
Moorefields (NR) Cheeks 06/22/98
Rigsbee's Rock House (NR) Eno 06/22/98
Totals, Orange County (unincorporated areas)
11 National Register (9 buildings ; 1 district; 1 archeological site)
39 National Register Study List (buildings)
3 National Register Study List (districts)
4 Local Historic Landmarks
2No separate district file created.
NR and NRSL Sites w/Tax Map Parcel Numbers
19 Aug-99
OR# Location Site Name Status Tax Map Number
OR 0003 Bingham Bingham School NR/Local 6.17..19
OR 0677 Bingham Maynard House NRSL 6.34..8
OR 0911 Bingham Sikes Place NRSL 6.10..12
OR 0923 Bingham White Cross School NRSL 6.30..8
OR 1013 Bingham Morris Lloyd House NRSL 6.29..37
OR 0671 Cedar Grove Carr United Methodist Church NRSL 2.14..12
OR 0672 Cedar Grove Nicholas Corbett Hester House NRSL 2.4..8A
OR 0685 Cedar Grove Rosie Wrenn House NRSL 2.12AA or 8B
OR 0734-6 Cedar Grove Ray-Kenion Rural Historic District NRSL 2.35..13
OR 0761 Cedar Grove White Oak Grove School NRSL 2.28AD
OR 0778 Cedar Grove Harmony Church NRSL 2.40.31A or B
OR 0791 Cedar Grove John Paisley Hughes House NRSL 2.32.39
OR 0823 Cedar Grove Tally Homeplace NRSL 2.5.3 or 2.5..12
OR 0829 Cedar Grove Pittard Place NRSL 2.27.3
OR 1037 Cedar Grove Willy Woods McDade Farm NRSL 2.26..5
OR 1055 Cedar Grove Walter Hawkins Farm NRSL 2.21.3
OR 0365 Chapel Hill Smith-Cole House NRSL 7.120..12
1
Ca
Q
C�
OR# Location Site Name Status Tax Map Number
OR 0371 Chapel Hill Cole Farm NRSL 7.126..A3
OR 0374 Chapel Hill Vance Daniel Farm NRSL 7.120..1C
OR 0375 Chapel Hill Pritchard-Poythress Farm NRSL 7.120..3J
OR 0386 Chapel Hill Bryant Nevilles Farm NRSL 7.115..9A
OR 0405 Chapel Hill Bethel Baptist Church NRSL 7.112.33
OR 0425 Chapel Hill Neville House NRSL 7.13..23
OR 0434 Chapel Hill Sam and Laura Nunn House NRSL 7.18..E
OR 0440 Chapel Hill Henry Lloyd Farm NRSL 7.112..9
OR 0467 Chapel Hill Murphy School NRSL 7.4..22
OR 0470 Chapel Hill Sam Couch Farm NRSL 7.5..13
OR 0471 Chapel Hill William Couch Farm NRSL 7.6..15
OR 0494 Chapel Hill Davis Farm NRSL 7.10..11B
OR 0001 a Cheeks Chatwood NR/Local 3.15..8B
OR 0010 Cheeks Moorefields NR/Local 3.51..3
OR 0015 Cheeks Paisley-Rice Log House NR 3.1..68
OR 0869 Cheeks Hall's Mill Inn NRSL 3.5..13
OR 1021 Cheeks S.C. Forrest House NRSL 3.38.B.7
OR 1376 Cheeks Maude Faucette House (The Elms) NRSL 3.4..4
OR 000lb Eno Rigsbee Rock House NR/Local 5.3.B.9
OR 0018 Eno St. Mary's Chapel NR 5.10.39
2
OR# Location Site Name Status Tax Map Number
OR 0652 Eno Gosling House NRSL 5.11..14A
OR 0656 Eno Cabe-Pratt-Harris House NRSL 5.24..1
OR 0663 Eno Maple Hill NR 5.14..23B
OR 0666 Eno Benjamin Duke House NRSL 5.26..45
OR 0673 Eno Caine Roberts House NRSL 5.12..16
OR 0692 Eno Sunnyside NRSL 5.14..21A
OR 0002 Hillsborough Ayr Mount NR 4.37.C.12
OR 0667 Hillsborough Phelps Farm NRSL 4.2..1
OR 0690 Little River Reilly House NRSL 1.19..5B
OR 0929 Little River Miller House NRSL 1.14..1 or 1.10..16
OR 0931 Little River Dr. Arch C. Jordan House NR 1.15..8
OR 1084 Little River Miller-Kirkland Farm NRSL 1.10.3
3
O
012
Priority List — Local Landmark Designation
OR# Site Name Status Location Tax Map Number
* OR 0002 Ayr Mount NR Hillsborough 4 . 37 . C . 12
OR 0365 Smith-Cole House NRSL Chapel Hill 7 . 120 . . 12
OR 0386 Bryant Nevilles Farm NRSL Chapel Hill 7 . 115 . . 9A
OR 0470 Sam Couch farm NRSL Chapel Hill 7 . 5 . . 13
OR 0656 Cabe-Pratt-Harris House NRSL Eno 5 .24 . . 1
* OR 0666 Benjamin Duke House NRSL Eno 5 . 26 . .45
* OR 0667 Phelps Farm NRSL Hillsborough 4 . 2 . . 1
OR 0671 Carr United Methodist Church NRSL Cedar Grove 2 . 14 . . 12
OR 0673 Caine Roberts House NRSL Eno 5 . 12 . . 16
OR 0761 White Oak Grove School NRSL Cedar Grove 2 .28 . . 8D
OR 0829 Pittard Place NRSL Cedar Grove 2 . 27 . . 3
OR 0931 Dr. Arch C . Jordan House NR Little River 1 . 15 . . 8
OR 1376 Maude Faucette House (The Elms) NRSL Cheeks 3 . 4 . .4
* Owner declines
08/ 19/99
Page 1 of 1
U �- 3 Attachment 2
Orange County
Environment and Resource Conservation Department
P . O . Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 2 72 78
Phone : (919) 732 - 8181 or 967- 9251 , x2590 ,�►�
Fax : (919) 644-3002
Enutil : dstancil@co . o10anore . 17C . US
Memorandum
T0 : Agricultural Districts Advisory Board
Commission for the Environment
Historic Preservation Commission
Shaping Orange County 's Future Task Force
Water Resources Committee
From : David Stancil
ERC Director
Date : June 16 , 1999
Re : A Land Resource Acquisition Program for Orange County
One of the primary tasks assigned to the Environment and Resource
Conservation Department was the development of a comprehensive
program for resource acquisition . An outline of a proposed Land
Resource Acquisition Program ( LRAP ) based on direction from the
Board of Commissioners is attached .
As you may recall , this program would develop a set of criteria ,
.database and a management structure for the acquisition of selected
natural resource lands . This acquisition program will be coordinated
with the other agencies and land trusts that work toward the
preservation of land . I would note that the LRAP will be a completely
voluntary program .
Between now and September, we will be developing a detailed
proposal based on this outline . As advisory boards with interests in
many of these areas , please take a look at the outline and pass along
general recommendations you have for development of this program .
In particular, I would ask your advice in two key areas ( Section
IV of the outline ) :
014
➢ In your Board ' s area of expertise, what type of land
resources should be top County priorities for resource
acquisition ?
(For example, "natural areas rated regionally-significant ' or
"buffers along streams in watershed critical areas ': Please do not
list specific parcels, unless desired)
➢ What criteria should we use for resource acquisition in your
board 's field of expertise ?
(For example, the Commission for the Environment would develop
criteria for identifying and preserving selected natural areas, such
as "biodiversity and species richness " or "number of state - listed
rare species ' etc. )
Brief, informal '" bulleted " responses to the above issues would be most
helpful at this point . Although all comments are certainly welcome , I
would ask the boards to focus on their respective area of expertise to
minimize duplication . I do recognize that some issues transcend topics
and that some areas have different levels of needs/ options for
preservation . At this time , however, a more - generic look at the
priorities in each area would be most useful . You may wish to use the
following table as a guide to thinking about these matters :
f r Farmland conservation easements or
K acquisitions
µx Natural areas an.d wildlife habitats ,
' 5
m riparian buffers , preservation of
ar ,
natural areas within park concept
Riparian buffers
easements/ purchases , wellhead
rotection areas ? ?
h Historic sites easements or
acquisitions
3 Parklands and preservation of natural
areas within park concepts . Criteria
}
. _ from Master Rec and Parks report ,
UMV
s q Integration of the whole package
Please develop any thoughts or comments and transmit to me by
August 31 , I will be attending an upcoming meeting of each Board to
discuss the development of the program and will be glad to elaborate
where possible .
As we move forward with the development of the LRAP , we will
address management structure , methods and tools , and the different
015
a
nature of acquisitions . You will , of course , have additional opportunities
to review the draft and provide input . I am hopeful of hiring the new
Land Resource Conservation Manager , a position with a specialized
focus in this area , in September to help develop and explain the
program .
Tentatively , we plan to solicit preliminary feedback from the advisory
boards in June - August , before making a report to the Board of
Commissioners in September . Each advisory board ( along with other
interested agencies/ boards ) would see the program again in October
for review and comment , with a goal of a final program to the Board of
Commissioners for action in November .
Please feel free to call or email ( dstancil@co . orange . nc . us ) if you have
any questions .
Copies : Board of Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
Craig Benedict , Planning Director
Bob Jones , Recreation and Parks Director
Brent Bogue , District Conservationist
Don Belk, Land Use and Preservation Planner
H : \ LRAP - ADV . doc
416
f 4 Cri fist i c, Fro CY\
..: S 1 0 ,o U
i _t. .1 , . ,,.... ,....
..:........{,l,irt a.. .......,..,,1.R. .w.;.M.M. �_. /�.z.. :...o-._.......,........ .ac...,.t.2<..-_...,..L#Y-7�.2._.._....•,z,t.....t...._..........t...t...I.:.<....z._...�.zS.•Y,.f.t...w..._.....i,..ti.............a.......,.x f.. <.:..,___.......... .. . - _ „-._ . •<..{. . .fit :,ae..:.r.:z.:.:j•.-._.....r.,._.�<_s<+,.?;.._..t.1;.t..�„..;.a:,e.:t, r,;:,z5,,,=-<.�.. ..,r..•.I€nt.#«...<t'E,c..;k:Fas#t:S:o,:_,.<•1-#r-a,:-.',¢:.,t�...tL._.,s,_.:t:r<.3,,t::
_ r .,,, > ,.,F.
l
f:-
High Size area
High Shape ( re : minimization of edge effects —could be quantified as ratio
of edge to interior area
High ( Slope / elevation / orientation topography) — might make it more or
less susceptible to development; might have
some special or unique feature (things that might make a group
willing to contribute to its protection )Topography :
slope/elevation/orientation - -
Medium Proximity / geographic relation connectivity : proximity/geographic
relation to other natural areas
Medium Does it contribute to a Wildlife corridor water & land or just land ) ?
Low Position in watershed distance from source re : waterquality)
Low Geographic evenness _ ( by watershed ?
Low Does it have body of water?
. <, .._._e..... ..t.t.,, ,,...•.. - ._: . . ..- E_:.:.�,...'....s..:f#f...,..?..::::_..oX.i...'.v....,,t....�,....d-:.„.ty r..sw,._.,p...s£,.:..:..:.,•.:.s,....,...t�...2,...:..:..,?..<::.. >...'i,s.>�_�tx�t�:-..,._2,�.:. :t. "�r� .. �._--t. .I•.- ....�.. ..: .....:.....F_,,.FI t^_.° •f;.x"F :,Yt.,w^i,tsettst,^..:.tt..:t^.,i.x<_.`;...fL.t,.c-......,..t;_^tt.:,,:.:-:_z...t._•:..:.:.,:.:,..1
e
: #z.. :.t.s..:ts1
a :; t . G..'1 ...:t..3Y...s'..^x+. . #..?..
, -
It
..
_-
� .f;
High Biodiversity — species richness
High Integrity ( needs clarification of definition , but things like crossing by
roads, power lines, selective logging in recent history, other signs of
degradation )
Medium Number of rare species/ State listed ( Natural Heritage), species of
conservation concern
Medium Ecosystem distinctness (state/ regional/country) : need to develop
means to judge this
Medium Presence of invasive exotic plant species ( how many species, how
severely infested
Low Ecosystem representation : Should we preserve some of all types?( beta
diversity) contribution to even representation
of the diversity of Orange County's ecosystems, preserve some of all
types
Low importance for bird breeding sites
F... ...... . ...
.... ... .. .. .. .......... t ,.. ,
.. . . t
.. .. r } } _. _ .... _,. .- .. .,. d .-: .E _ ... ._,..r.?h . .... . . . :.................._;....,,:..... ..... .. .... ,...:.
:�. .. ... .. .. .. -
U. mealy a �''t�4 . .._,. . .._. . . ,. , t-.t „ k............. .... .. _a :..��-: -t t.•:::::s•>- ::,:E .... .4. r ..: t
. ,l"i���77_. tt . ., . ..L ..x _ .1,.. <�...... . �
t....,... :,t_r,:{E...X.....z..,..._...vtoi
-'",: ::t.:— �:::r::.. , , - lt: : s— ...L.t.z...F
High Degree of threat ( proximity to urban area , proximity to development —
residential or industrial , proximity to roads
and planned roads, proposed development, on the market, said to be
about to go on the market threat of to in
Medium Other forms of pollution or proximity to — dump sites, underground
tanks hog farms etc .
Low Noise
Low Distance from artificial light sources
tt. ..wt` r. . - . . z f_.:._;.:.,:�? 3 €a{ - Y tr
::t ,. x....... ..... ..... : . . .. . . .. e..t ., r . - . >rt.,,„.
-t , _,chs...- {. ss.. . ..,N _., s. . , ., ..•,.-�. .. _._,.,.. .. s. >....t w..,,.., t._ .. t,. ,..
.... _ .. .. 3 f- . A. . ... .. ... .. ..: `::Ys:f. .. :, , :. . . ,. .£... ...:_:t:: ,:::e:z--.,.. 3
.t n.., .. _ „ .,.c,o.
-s, .t. ::.>{_f £... r - .. x_ , ,. L.,. .t,- .,.... , c,.e.-,r .,::rt l:;t_2;; _ - _
.....� :. .,.. .. -., .t.t _. ...V. L ., ._- z#z. . _ , . - .. .. .t: . .... . .;;_tta't-t.•-;.::s ; ,C., .,.4.:
!1 � < . .. ..{, . ... .ESt.. �jzry=. ...�. .... z.... . .. t. . . .x. .. ,. _ . , ... . ..o .,. xt .... ..... .. . .u...- .,.... . . c.t._ :.:: { 'i>r' _ _ _ .e:f::>:t4:;i=.. ..... , . .._....,_ .... . . ....... X .._ • a z . . � ... ((jj:jj � l1. . �1 � ..: t ._._ . ..r., .,-..< , ,ct..X. �> ;� . _s 3 :'.ta"'r#a:i�+°
_ . . .. . ,. ... .:. ..t. . ...., ... _......_z . ., .. - _ t.!.l..., .....tCT.......:. .5�:<....: . ... -. _ . - •,- ... . . .t_ _. „ 4:•s .:f.� .. ._ .. . . :r?<? {z; $,::2i" :;is ei:
. . ... > . .. .: . rt ...t.............[,.,...-,..L....._<F , �€ t:t_;,t>ar-:..w,,<.it: 'srata�„2 ,. -: # _ „.{..�. , �L .
High Scenic value to be used judiciously)
Medium Potential for recreational use
Medium Presence of historical/archeological sites/significance
Low Proximity to population centers/ users
Low North county vs south county both as human and spatial issue
Low Presence of species/ resources of economic value ( is there anything
other than timber?
FY 1999-2000 1
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CONMS SIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL
5/3/99
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
GOAL STATEMENT: Implement the goals and objectives of the Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Goal Initiated/Proposed By: Board of County Commissioners/Historic Preservation Commission
Most Recent Version Adopted by BOCC:November, 1997
S:.
TA'I'TJS REP ORT
This goal seeks to carry out the goals and objectives in the Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan,which was adopted by the Board in
April, 1996. Work in FY 1999-2000 includes completion of the St.Mary's Road/Trading Path Historic Corridor project,which include money from both
the State Historic Preservation Office and local matching dollars. Other projects include publishing of a Historic Architecture manuscript and continuing the
Local Landmark Designation Program. The objectives in this goal for FY 1999-2000 are consistent with revisions made to the goal in fall of 1998.
:
Completion of this goal will involve both local and grant funding. A grant of$4,000 has been received for the St. Mary's Road project,with
$6,000 in County funding and$10,000 for local landmark designations approved in the FY 98-99 budget. The objectives assume continuation
of funding for the Local Landmark program. In addition, the following commitment of existing staff resources will be required: Land Use and
Preservation Planner,ERC Director, and ERC Administrative Assistant.Approximately 1200 hours of volunteer time from the Historic
Preservation Commission is also needed to accomplish the goals.
O
rt
rt
n
c�
rt
W
FY 1999-2000 2
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS c°
PROPOSED GOAL
5/3/99
l 4
RI S R, �ATLO 1
,
,.PRE � �
:,.
OBJECTIVE 1 —Identify priority sites for National Register nominations and local landmark designations
DATE TASKSIMILESTONES TARGET FOR
ADOPTED COMPLETION
BY BOCC
Identify priority sites for National Register nominations and local landmark designations August- October
1999 and ongoing
Contact landowners to invite participation in program October-December
1999 and ongoing
Prepare National Register nominations and local designation reports for White Oak Grove School and November 1999 -
(possibly)the Phelps Farm January 2000 and
ongoing
Conduct public hearings on proposed designations February, 2000 or
May, 2000
Historic Preservation Commission recommendation March 2000 or June,
2000
BOCC decision April, 2000 or July,
2000
FY 1999-2000 3
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL
5/3/99
1USTORIC TRtSERVATION
OBJECTIVE 2—To utilize Certified Local Government grants and local matching funds to implement goals of the Preservation Element
DATE TASKS/MILESTONES TARGET FOR
ADOPTED COMPLETION
BY BOCC
Submit proposals for Certified Local Government(CLG) Grant October 1999 -
September, 2001
Consideration of CLG projects;recommendations forwarded from HPC to BOCC October-November,
1999
BOCC consideration of HPC proposal for CLG Grant. December, 1999
Certified Local Government grant application approved by BOCC and forwarded to State Historic January, 2000
Preservation Office. Conduct public hearings on proposed designations.
Grant Awards announced by State Historic Preservation Office March-April, 2000
HPC and staff prepare requests for professional services to conduct grant project; recommendations May-June, 2000
forwarded to BOCC for consideration
Contractual agreements reviewed by HPC/Staff and approved by BOCC; grant project work July-August, 2000
commences
Grant project work period ends. September, 2001
C�
FY 1999-2000 4
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CONaVIISSIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL o
5/3/99
;T C ER: AT J•,I S � O N': 4
1
,
a. f
OBJECTIVE 3 —To complete Preservation Planning Study for the St. Mary's Road/Trading Path Historic Corridor
DATE TASKS/MILESTONES TARGET FOR
ADOPTED COMPLETION
BY BOCC
Consultants complete architectural and archeological inventory of the St. Mary's Road/Trading Path Ongoing through
Historic Corridor September 1999
Provide status report of survey fmdings to St. Mary's Road property owners. July-September 1999
Presentation of survey findings to BOCC; recommendations from HPC for continued planning October-November,
1999
FY 1999-2000 5
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL
5/3/99
OBJECTIVE 4—To publish the historical architecture manuscript
DATE TASKS/MILESTONES TARGET FOR
ADOPTED COMPLETION
BY BOCC
Historic Preservation Commission recommends publisher for Architectural History of Orange July-August, 1999
County; contractual agreement reviewed and approved by BOCC;production schedule established
Develop publicity campaign to invite community involvement and private donations July- September 1999
Pre-press production: copy editing,proofreading, indexing, design/composition and typesetting October 1999 -
February 2000
Printing and binding;publicity and book release March-April, 2000
0
ND
FY 1999-2000 6
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CONIlVIISSIONERS
PROPOSED GOAL o
5/3/99
,HISTt}�IC.PRE ERVAT1ON
1: 3
r.:
OBJECTIVE 5—Pursue viewshed
protection goals to protect the integrity of significant historic sites and districts
DATE TASKS/MILESTONES TARGET FOR
ADOPTED COMPLETION
BY BOCC
Historic Preservation Commission reviews Visual Resource goals of Rural Character Study October, 1999
Joint meeting with Planning Board to discuss ordinance amendments regarding viewshed December, 1999
protection for historic districts or National Register sites
ERCD and Planning staffs jointly prepare new implementation tools January—March,
2000
Report to Board of Commissioners April,2000
Public hearing on any proposed ordinance changes May,2000