Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
14 <br /> 1 Commissioner McKee said the intention is to address the lack of overall plan or to ask <br /> 2 what the plan is. <br /> 3 Chair Jacobs said he wanted to clarify if the Board is directing staff to proactively <br /> 4 address a walkability plan or just saying that there is no overall plan. <br /> 5 Commissioner McKee said the issue of need for, or lack of need for, a master plan <br /> 6 should be part of the Planning Board and staff's discussion. He said that his concern continues <br /> 7 to be the 700 pages of the Economic Development Ordinance and its impact on the affordability <br /> 8 of housing and the attractiveness of locating businesses in Orange County. <br /> 9 Commissioner Rich said it feels like this is not ready to be voted on. <br /> 10 Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Motion 3-c should include the additional <br /> 11 statement to "Accept the planning director's recommendation", followed by the recommendation <br /> 12 wording below Issue 7 on page 3, which states as follows: <br /> 13 ...Planning Director recommends that additional study occur to create more logical, <br /> 14 legal and cost effective regulation in regards to pedestrian systems. The development of a <br /> 15 village pedestrian master plan with associated private maintenance authorities (should) <br /> 16 potentially be explored <br /> 17 Commissioner McKee accepted the friendly amendment <br /> 18 Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification about Commissioner McKee's original <br /> 19 statement of the issues. <br /> 20 Chair Jacobs said that he read 3-c and then asked for answers and clarification to <br /> 21 issues 1-7. <br /> 22 Commissioner Gordon said she would say address the issues and then add the second <br /> 23 point she read previously, changing the word could to should. <br /> 24 Commissioner Rich accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> 25 Commissioner Price said that liability is mentioned with regard to pedestrian walkways <br /> 26 but she is concerned about safety and this is not mentioned. <br /> 27 Commissioner Dorosin asked Craig Benedict about the recommendation of adoption of <br /> 28 Attachment 2, in the interim. <br /> 29 Craig Benedict said that, aside from the pedestrian walkway issue, there are 15-20 good <br /> 30 aspects that are not being questioned and make sense. He said that going with 3-c throws <br /> 31 these good things out. He said that going with Attachment 2 accepts these good things and <br /> 32 holds off the pedestrian circulation issues. <br /> 33 Chair Jacobs said that if you read 3-c it states that everything comes to a halt. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Rich Commissioner McKee Commissioner Gordon <br /> 36 Commissioner Price); Nays, 3 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner <br /> 37 Dorosin) <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Motion passed <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Commissioner Pelissier questioned if there would be a need for a new public hearing. <br /> 42 Perdita Holtz said yes and noted that the buffer requirements are still in effect. <br /> 43 Chair Jacobs asked for clarification regarding all of the discussion on buffering. He <br /> 44 referred to page 59 —c, and said the statements about vegetative buffering do not clarify if <br /> 45 existing vegetation can be used. <br /> 46 Perdita Holtz said that existing vegetations is acceptable and referred to this statement <br /> 47 in section 6.8. <br /> 48 <br /> 49 7. Regular Agenda <br /> 50 <br />