Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-18-2014 - 6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2014
>
Agenda - 02-18-2014 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 02-18-2014 - 6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/3/2015 10:34:27 AM
Creation date
2/17/2014 10:32:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/18/2014
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6a
Document Relationships
Minutes 02-18-2014
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I Commissioner Pelissier said she does not want the land use plan driven solely by <br />2 compilation projections that go out 30 -50 years. She said it does not make sense to just look at <br />3 rural Orange County. She said there should be consideration of all municipalities and what they <br />4 are doing that is pertinent to the transit plan. She said this is a moving target, and the <br />5 projections cannot be used as the final end point for a land use plan. <br />6 Tony Blake asked if these same numbers were used to justify the Triangle Transit <br />7 Authority (TTA) transit plan and tax. He questioned why those kinds of numbers would be used <br />8 with the transportation organizations, but Craig Benedict's numbers would not be used to plan. <br />9 Commissioner Pelissier said the issue is whether it is rural or urban. She said the transit <br />10 has to be more urban. <br />11 Tony Blake said the numbers in the TTA plan were those same numbers. He said his <br />12 confusion lies with the idea that these are not real numbers. <br />13 Paul Guthrie said he is less concerned about population numbers and more concerned <br />14 that there is a built in board strategy for things that would have to be done for a water quality or <br />15 water supply problem. He said this would provide options. He said one example would be a <br />16 package plant in a small area to take care of waste. He asked if this would fit into the solution, <br />17 or if it is one -time expense that will have to be shut down at some point. He said this thought <br />18 process needs to be a part of planning and Board policy with growth and development. <br />19 Commissioner Price said she agreed with Craig Benedict from a planning perspective. <br />20 She said it is better to over project than under project. She said the population has tripled since <br />21 1990, and the County needs to be prepared and flexible. She said the area is trying to attract <br />22 business and people, and people will come. She noted that Chapel Hill is increasing its density <br />23 and urbanization. She said Hillsborough is trying to keep its reigns on a small population in a <br />24 small historic town. She feels the Board should be prepared. <br />25 Chair Jacobs said there is a water and sewer boundary agreement that provides for <br />26 extensions in case of a catastrophic failure. He said OWASA has done this before, and Orange <br />27 County does have areas of influence where it would be in charge of a package treatment plant <br />28 or an extension. <br />29 He said the other aspect to planning for growth, is the presumption that there are natural <br />30 limits of growth. He said if you are talking about groundwater, open space, and groundwater in <br />31 reservoirs, Orange County is not going to be able to accommodate 63,000 more people unless <br />32 these residents are in the urban areas. He said the question is how this could be accomplished <br />33 and still keep Orange County's quality of life. He said the presumption is typically given to <br />34 accommodating the growth, as opposed to the presumption of what baseline can be supported. <br />35 He would like to see both considered. <br />36 Tony Blake said the rural buffer was in place prior to 1 -40 being put into place. He <br />37 asked if there has been any talk about changing some of the designations along this corridor. <br />38 Chair Jacobs said he has not heard any significant discussion of this. He has heard <br />39 some elected officials in Chapel Hill discuss the possibility of extending Chapel Hill into parts of <br />40 the rural buffer where it would promote development. <br />41 Tony Blake said Carolina North will more than double the present campus area at UNC. <br />42 He said that will presumably drive a desire for people to move into this area. He asked if <br />43 anyone has taken a hard look at what is sustainable and possible. <br />44 Craig Benedict said the projection also predicts 50,000 new employees in the Triangle, <br />45 and that number will be split among the three counties. He said the cities must be considered <br />46 first, to see what they can accommodate. He said this question could not be answered right <br />47 away, so a straight line projection was used. He said the new update to the plan will account for <br />48 the growth in the cities when determining what may happen in the rural buffer. <br />49 He said the question is, if the growth could come this way, how it will fit Orange County. <br />50 He said Orange County does not have an inventory of existing buildings for the potential new <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.