Minutes - 20080610 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Chair Jacobs: Maybe it should be "irreplaceable." In the Economic Development part on 5-41, it's mentioned occasionally the idea that there should be some kind of community services in rural areas. The way the zoning was done for a long time was to separate uses and so there are no commercial uses through huge slots of Orange County. So I would suggest that we should mention in there somewhere about providing community services in appropriate locations in rural areas. It's indirectly referenced. Commissioner Gordon: Aren't those the nodes that are designated? You need to be careful how you phrase that. If you recall, when we located those nodes, there was a lot of controversy and that's why there are not any more nodes than there are. So you have to figure out what we mean by that. Chair Jacobs: On 5-42, Natural and Cultural Systems, Objective AG-I. Although I think I know, say we support the Right to Farm Act, and we don't know what the Right to Farm Act is and then people may think that it is something else. I think we should just say what we mean. And then a little bit lower, /\E'11, this whole notion of LEED ''Go|d", we should just say LEED "Go|d" Vra substantial equivalent, because that may also change and we already have standards that we think are pretty high standards that we developed with Triangle J, and they're not LEED. There's two places in here where it's mentioned. Jay Bryan: That came out of Natural and Cultural Systems and it's a pretty powerful atmteDleDt, and we may want to refer back to them and ask for clarification about what they're intending in terms of this. There's probably a lot more, if I remember, to the Right to Farm Act than that second sentence. Chair Jacobs: Here's another example of ways these timeline things are confusing on the top of page 5-43. "Prohibit development that would cause adverse impacts on highly significant natural areas and wildlife habitat," and it says long-term, which I assume means somewhere down the road. We would have to go through each one of these, and I just question is it worth it and how we could ever agree. I just bring it up as an example. Just |ihe, down farther. PR-5.4 in Parks and Recreation. Are linear parks greenways and wildlife corridors, what is it? Are we avoiding, I notice the word "greenway" never occurs in this document. And wildlife corridors rarely. Are we still afraid to use the word "greenway"? If that's what it is, maybe in parentheses it could say "greenway." On page 5-44, WW-14, it states "designate prime reservoir sites in the County, and protect those sites from adverse development." There's an absolute competing interest in protecting the significant natural areas that might best be designated as reservoirs, so I would just suggest that somehow the conflicting nature of a designated reservoir site is indicated, because if we just leave it as reservoir site, those are always the most significant undisturbed natural gFeas, and in this CoUntx, they're the last few intact biological views. So even though, yes, long-term we want to designate prime reservoir, I think we also want to do that in the context that there is a conflict. Commissioner Gordon: Just in terms of how our comments should be used, I think that we should consider that what we said was flagged and that the Planning Board should look at the attachments. And the other thing is, from the elements that we haven't commented on, I take it