Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
y IT <br /> 16 <br /> district was proposed with a higher level of <br /> protection. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous . • <br /> AGENDA ITEM #4a. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Text <br /> #4b. Joint Planning Agreement <br /> MOTION: Jacobs moved to recommend to the Board of County <br /> Commissioners that the issues of impervious surface <br /> and lot size averaging, and the means of addressing <br /> equity concerns such as purchase of land and/or <br /> development rights in the watershed be presented <br /> again at public hearing before all three <br /> jurisdictions . Until such time, Jacobs recommended <br /> that the Commissioners not adopt any standards <br /> regarding impervious surface or lot size as part of <br /> the Joint Planning Agreement or Land Use Plan. <br /> Seconded by Best. <br /> Collins indicated he felt the Board should approve <br /> the proposals as presented at public hearing. He <br /> cited the Board' s approval of a resolution which <br /> included a provision to proceed with the review and <br /> implementation of the 13-point agreement. By <br /> addressing the 13-point agreement at another public <br /> hearing, the issues and concerns that had just been <br /> identified could be dealt with then. Collins added <br /> that the proposals as presented at the February 28 <br /> public hearing were the most basic strategies <br /> involving lot sizes and did not address specific <br /> standards such as impervious surface ratios . <br /> Best indicated that the municipalities needed to <br /> address the equity issues before any amendments were <br /> made to the Joint Planning Agreement or Land Use <br /> Plan. <br /> Collins suggested that the concerns involving the <br /> equity issues as well as the entire 13-point <br /> agreement could be dealt with in a manner similar to <br /> the first 13-point agreement between the three <br /> jurisdictions. That agreement was not part of the <br /> text of the Joint Planning Agreement but simply an <br /> appendix to it. The current 13-point agreement could <br /> be considered at a public hearing, then incorporated <br /> as a new appendix to Joint Planning Agreement. <br /> Best indicated that the concerns should be dealt with now before any <br /> amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement are made. <br /> To do otherwise would result in a piecemeal handling <br /> of the issues . <br /> Eddleman indicated that the proposed amendments to <br />