Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br />update is completed, this could be put into effect sooner. He thinks that this is a good <br />opportunity to move forward. <br />Commissioner Foushee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs. She asked about the <br />negative impacts to passing this now. If there are none, she has no problem with moving <br />forward. <br />Chair Carey said that he thought about this, and he could not come up with any negative <br />impacts because this is just a first step in a process. <br />Commissioner Nelson said that his concern is that this is a land use issue and a <br />definition change, and he would have felt more comfortable if it had come to the Board as a <br />regular agenda item, particularly since there was a split vote. <br />Commissioner Gordon said she would support what Commissioner Nelson said about <br />having it in the regular agenda. In the future, for split recommendations from the Planning <br />Board, she asked that the item be put an the regular agenda. <br />Chair Carey said that setting agenda items as consent versus regular agenda was a <br />decision by the Chair and Vice-Chair in consultation with the Manager. He did not believe that <br />recommendations by advisory boards would have to be unanimous before they went on the <br />consent agenda. He thinks that it is a decision that the Chair and Vice-Chair make during the <br />agenda review process. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to <br />approve adoption of text amendments to the Land Use Element regarding 10-Year Transition <br />areas, as presented at the May 21, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br />VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that this was discussed at agenda review, and it was decided <br />to leave it as a consent item because the County Commissioners have no problem pulling items <br />off. This poses a problem, though, because the public may not know about items that are <br />pulled off. <br />v. Comprehensive Plan Update -Amendments to Update Process <br />The Board considered amendments to Phase II of the adopted Update Process to <br />incorporate Clarion Associates' contractual Scope of Services. <br />Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 6, 7, 9, and 10. On page 6, Task 4: <br />Present Comprehensive Plan and Revise, she suggested adding that the consultant should be <br />available when staff checks in with the County Commissioners in March, 2008. She would like <br />the consultants to be available to the County Commissioners as necessary. On page 9, 8-c, <br />she suggested that it state, "StafflConsultant check-in point with BOCC early March, 2008." <br />Also, on page 10, the 2~d Public Hearing and Plan Adoption, she said that it is <br />conceivable that it might take mare than one meeting. On page 7, she suggested that item C <br />say, "Max of two meetings" as opposed to "one meeting." <br />Tom Altieri said that what is provided on attachment 1 is the Contractual Scope of <br />Services that the Board of County Commissioners has already approved. Attachment 2 is the <br />amended phase 2 process to incorporate what has already been approved in the scope of <br />services. The scope of services addresses only what the consultant will do through this <br />process, whereas the amended process includes both consultant tasks, staff tasks, and <br />advisory board tasks. He thinks that asking the consultant to check in with the County <br />Commissioners would be fine. He thinks that Roger Waldon of Clarion would be willing to <br />attend the meetings throughout the process. Commissioner Gordon said that if that could be <br />informally understood, then she is okay with it. <br />Geof Gledhill said that if Clarion wanted a change in the contract, then Tom Altieri could <br />bring it back. <br />