HPC minutes 120215 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

a. Second step of Local Landmark application process for the Nicholas Corbett Hester House, Part 2: Staff noted that we are waiting for the SHPO to provide their mandatory review comments, which are due by Dec. 5th. Once we get their comments, staff will send out a revised version with any changes noted in highlight. Then we can move the entire package forward, with the SHPO letter, to the BOCC in time for our Dec. 15th joint public hearing. This is inconvenient, but not a problem. We will still be able to hold the hearing, then the BOCC can pass the ordinance. The good news is that this will be the first public hearing item on the BOCC agenda. The hearing will be held at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, on Homestead Road. Staff will send a map link and other information. b. Review of Procedure for HPC joint public hearing with BOCC: Staff gave an overview of how this will work. Most members were present for the White Cross School landmark hearing back in May, so it will follow that same process. Members will have reserved seating in the front row. Staff will introduce you to the BOCC, then give a brief presentation about the Hester House. The BOCC chair will open the public hearing, ask for any comments, then close the hearing. They will then vote on the adoption of the ordinance to designate the house as a landmark. Last time the BOCC did not vote but waited for a month, then staff had to make a second presentation about the same property, and then the BOCC acted. This time we will shorten the process as other commissions do if there are no substantive public comments. If we ever do receive comments that must be addressed, then we will have to wait until a later meeting so that those comments can be addressed. c. Adoption of meeting calendar for 2016: The draft calendar presented by staff was approved by acclamation. Staff will review the attendance policy at our next meeting to bring everyone up to date. The County Clerk is asking all boards to observe that policy more rigorously. Ireland wants the record to show that Golan has missed only one meeting during his entire two terms of service, over almost six years. ITEM #7: DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Annual Report and Work Plan due on Dec. 18: Staff reviewed the annual report/work plan process and noted that the board chairs and staff will attend a BOCC work session on February 9th to answer questions and explain goals and needs. Ireland raised questions about the quantity of the various work items listed and wondered if the BOCC put special emphasis on metrics. Staff noted that in past work sessions, it is clear that the County Commissioners are most interested in the big picture, the stated goals and recent accomplishments. They want to know that you are setting goals and getting things done. They also want to know about issues that may be of special interest, ie, are politically sensitive or will require funding. Ireland asked if this reflects the current goals. Staff explained that the goals here were defined during the HPC's retreat held in 2013. It may be time to start talking about having another retreat to review goals and set new ones. Ballard stated that the book was going to be a demanding project and would require our focused effort to get it accomplished. It would help her and other members to get an updated, detailed timeline for the project, mapping out the next steps and the future budget needs. Staff will provide this for the next meeting. Ballard reminded members that while the book is our main focus, we also need to maintain our focus on designating at least two landmarks per year. Discussion followed about how landmarks are funded. Staff reviewed the current scenario whereby there is some funding available each year through the Lands Legacy budget to help property owners pay consultants to do landmark applications so we can maintain this pace. We try not to pay for the whole thing but get owners to put up some of the cost so that our County funding can go as far as possible. There is a down side for local governments if too many 2