Minutes 02-21-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Craig Benedict said that before any changes are made in the white area they will notify residents of any proposed changes. He noted similar debates during the late 80's in the planning process of determining some of the rural zoning density. This was eventually voted on as one unit per two acres. The thought was that if it stayed at the previous number of one unit per one acre, it would not be a low enough zone to protect the rural lifestyle and to differentiate it from the urban environment. Similarly, there is still one unit per one acre in other areas and if the soil will accommodate the well and septic needs of this number, it could add up to quite a few units. He noted that this will add traffic to what is already a traffic concern area. He said that will be a decision through the public hearing process of notifying the public and working with the County Commissioners to make a determination about the white area. Commissioner Gordon questioned whether the plan and map are really formally adopted in step one, or step two. Tom Altieri said this would be a process similar to the small area plans, (i.e. Efland, Mebane) where the County Commissioners adopt a plan in one public hearing and then in a second public hearing goes through the first class mail process before formally making changes. Commissioner Gordon clarified that this means it is not formally done until step two and Tom Altieri said that is correct. Commissioner Price she does not know if there is any need to worry about the white area. The critical part is the ETJ and the blue and orange area. Chair Jacobs said what he is hearing is that the white area will not change unless the county proposes a change. He noted that at this point there are no zoning change proposals in the white area other than those that are already part of the agreement, the gray and the blue. Margaret Hauth said the light blue are outside their urban service boundary, where there are already water lines in the ground. She said there is no impact to the light blue areas under the agreements. c. Safe Routes to Schools (STST) Action Plan Update Abigaile Pittman, Transportation Planner for Orange County, reviewed the history of the Safe Routes to School action plan, as outlined on pages two and three of the meeting abstract. She gave details regarding the revisions to federal and state funding sources, specifically the federal funding, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21St Century Bill (MAP 21), in which Safe Routes to School direct allocation funds were removed. She said that NC Department of Transportation staff has told the planning staff that safety loop funds will continue to be available to the program with the nine competitive rolling grant cycles. She said this program is a reimbursement program that does not require local management and is 100 percent federally funded. She said that when applying for federal reimbursement grants, the county and town should budget funds and set up accounts to expend those funds until DOT has reimbursed the project costs. After identification of projects, the county would apply through the DOT Division 7 office and funding is based on project priority with as much local support as possible from PTA groups, etc. Town Commissioner Lowen asked for clarification on CW Stanford Middle School as a choice and asked what determined why these schools were chosen and not the schools next to them. Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:36 PM Craig Benedict gave some history on the project and said that the advisory board had several representatives and advocates were affiliated with the schools in Orange County. They determined that accomplishments could be made with the schools stated here. He said, with Stanford, there is some expandability to cover up to the high school.