Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-01-1994 - VII-A
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Agenda - 03-01-94 Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 03-01-1994 - VII-A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2015 11:56:54 AM
Creation date
2/9/2015 10:53:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/1/1994
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
VII-A
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19940301
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
63 <br /> clear that development would be connected to the <br /> Efland sewer system. <br /> Insofar as transportation is concerned, Collins said <br /> that standards had been provided which required <br /> sites to be transit compatible. The developer pays <br /> for such site improvements, but the public pays for <br /> the transit system. Individual businesses that are <br /> large enough could provide van pools to park-and- <br /> ride lots or between the node and municipalities. <br /> The difficulty for the Triangle Transit Authority in <br /> terms of planning for and providing transit service <br /> to the nodes is that there is "nothing on the <br /> ground" in terms of actual development or zoning <br /> categories. Such service may ultimately be provided <br /> through rail and/or bus service, but the long term <br /> cost may well be by the public initially with <br /> capital and operating costs recouped through rider <br /> fares. <br /> Collins handed out a one-page summary which provided <br /> basic information about cost-benefit analysis. (A <br /> copy of the handout is included as an attachment to <br /> these minutes on pages -_. ) Collins noted impacts <br /> that the Commissioners had identified and stated <br /> that either through Planning or EDC data, it would <br /> be possible to provide most, if not all, of the <br /> desired information. The only exception would be <br /> where confidentiality or legal constraints existed. <br /> Ted Abernathy indicated that he felt that the <br /> districts would have no impact on residential <br /> growth. Abernathy noted situations that might occur <br /> where a building is constructed but no tenants have <br /> been located in the facility. While tax revenues <br /> would be received, until the space is actually <br /> occupied, there would be no employment data to <br /> collect. The other situation noted by Abernathy was <br /> that employees come and go. Capturing the <br /> information may be no problem, but six months from <br /> . the date of the survey, the responses may have <br /> changed completely. Abernathy concluded by saying <br /> that clarification is needed on some terms, such as <br /> "new" residents, but that could be worked out before <br /> data collection begins. He indicated that two years <br /> from now, there would probably be no development in <br /> either of the districts, so the time frame of 2-3 <br /> years would probably need to be expanded. <br /> Collins indicated that the last set of comments <br /> concerned criteria for development such as low water <br /> usage, little or no production of hazardous waste, <br /> and little or no truck traffic and low noise levels. <br /> Collins stated that hazardous waste was controlled <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.