Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
members of the work group felt like they achieved that. He feels comfortable standing by what the group <br />said. <br />Commissioner Gordon made reference to `b' and said that it is not clear whether the <br />alignment needs to be modeled or not. She thinks that if it does the Board should ask for it by December <br />Stn Karen Lincoln said that the alignment does not have to be modeled. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the stretch of US 70 dawn east that becomes four lanes <br />and then goes back to two lanes. He asked if this was the thinking for this road and if it was expected <br />that US 70 would be four lanes in the next 10-15 years. Craig Benedict said that DOT is trying to match <br />the roadway for the 2025 plan. He thinks that reserving the right-of-way for four lanes should be done. <br />There may be sections of US 70 that could be four lanes. <br />Chair Brown summarized what the Board wanted. For `a', the Board wants option1, for `b', <br />the Board wants 1 a, and for c, the Board wants 1. There are some changes in the language on b1 a, <br />"that has the least impact on environmental and cultural resources." <br />Commissioner Gordon clarified what "four lanes if necessary" meant. The Board wants two <br />lanes, but money will be put aside for four lanes. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks we are saying that we want to see the modeling <br />before we make a commitment to four lanes ar two lanes. <br />Chair Brown suggested taking out the reference to four lanes. <br />Commissioner Carey said that it should be left in. <br />The Board will vote on the dollar amount that is currently in the plan, with the four lanes. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis said that he hopes that the Board is kept posted an the non- <br />traditional revenue sources. He is concerned about doubling the tag fees and increasing taxes for <br />vehicles especially when DOT has a huge Highway Trust Fund. <br />Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Revised Northern Durham Parkway and said <br />that this is what was called option 7 by the TCC. It is now called the Revised Northern Durham Parkway. <br />There is supposed to be language that is circulated among the TAC representatives. She asked Karen <br />Lincoln about the language. <br />Karen Lincoln said that it was for future reference that dealt with any future major roadway <br />that would be proposed far any county, that it would not extend into any neighboring county, unless that <br />county was in agreement. It was not specific to this road. <br />Chair Brown asked what we are doing with this. Commissioner Gordan said that the question <br />is whether to input this resolution as it is, or wait to see what happens with other jurisdictions. <br />The Board decided to wait on this resolution. <br />There was consensus that Commissioner Gordon has authorization to convey the sentiments <br />of the Board on Elizabeth Brady Road, and also officially ask that on December 4tH, that Durham City <br />Council and Durham County Commissioners ensure by resolution that there will be no westward <br />extension of the corridor. <br />The Board will vote on the resolution on December 10tH <br />6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS <br />a. Tuscany Ridge Subdivision <br />The Board received information on five issues raised at its Nov. 6, 2002 meeting concerning <br />the Tuscany Ridge subdivision. <br />Planning Director Craig Benedict gave an update on the Tuscany Ridge subdivision. This <br />subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 27, 2002. He said that since <br />the approval of this there have been several issues that have been brought up -water resources, <br />environmental issues, etc. There have been reports provided to the Board and to the public addressing <br />the majority of the technical issues. In November, there were five more issues brought up by this Board <br />that warranted some additional research. These items are on page three of the agenda packet. <br />1. A letter was sent to DOT about the paving of Arthur Minnis Road and no direct comments have <br />come back from DOT about their position. <br />2. County Attorney looked at legislative changes on how roads are paved in the County based an <br />previous and new regulations. Geoff Gledhill has provided a letter describing the new <br />regulations. <br />