Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-15-1990 (2)
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1990
>
Agenda - 05-15-1990 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2017 12:27:48 PM
Creation date
11/1/2017 12:13:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/15/1990
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
532
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
a <br />Best asked if there were any more questions about the road <br />classification system for the County. He then asked if there <br />were any questions about the proposed collector /subcollector <br />system and "super - blocks" proposed by Rimley -Horn. Eidenier <br />asked about the classification of Green Riley Road which <br />connects NC 57 and Guess Road in Little River Township. She <br />stated that it appeared to be the missing link in what could <br />be visualized almost as a rural outer loop from Alamance <br />County to Durham County when you looked at the pattern of <br />roads formed by Mill Creek Road, Carr Store Road, Sawmill <br />Road, Walnut Grove Church Road, Little River Church Road, and <br />Guess Road. <br />Best asked if anyone had any problem in taking the Orange <br />County Road Classification system in conjunction with the <br />Orange County Thoroughfare Plan to public hearing as one item <br />and also consider the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan and DCHC <br />Plan as additional items. Best asked about Chapel Hill <br />progress on the DCHC Plan and Rogers and Norwood stated that <br />it looked like April or May for a public hearing. They did <br />state that most of the problems Chapel Hill had with the plan <br />were specific to the town proper. <br />Best then asked Bell to discuss the proposed public hearing <br />schedules he had brought for TAS consideration. Bell <br />indicated that the first schedule for April 30 was reflective <br />of the County Commissioner's desires to take the plan to <br />public hearing in April. The May 29 schedule was tied to the <br />regular quarterly public hearing schedule. He indicated he <br />was still waiting on comment from the Planning Director as to <br />the pros and cons of the two schedules. He indicated that he <br />was not aware of conflicts with any other meetings or <br />activities on the April 30 schedule. <br />Best asked for TAS comment on the proposed schedules. He <br />stated that he would like for the plan to go forward as soon <br />as possible, but wanted to allow ample time for public review <br />and comment. Post made a motion, seconded by Best, that the <br />plan go to public hearing on May 29. Eidenier asked how this <br />schedule coordinated with Durham Consideration of the DCHC <br />Plan. Rogers stated that Durham County would have a hearing <br />on March 21. Norwood pointed out that there were several <br />inter - jurisdictional issues that would have to be resolved. <br />In the case of Orange and Durham Counties it was the Outer <br />Loop. On issues like this he saw each individual governing <br />board holding its own hearing, taking a stand, and referring <br />it to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) for a final <br />resolution of differences if such a resolution could be <br />achieved. <br />Eidenier asked if anyone thought additional education of the <br />public was needed before a public hearing. Best said that <br />with the exception of the Orange County plan, which is really <br />a classification, he thought that most people affected by the <br />c3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.