Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 110216
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2016
>
OCPB agenda 110216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2018 12:28:48 PM
Creation date
3/14/2018 12:23:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/2/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 110216
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Minutes\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been <br />renumbered. <br />3 <br />Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment <br />page 13 <br />Revise definitions and references to wastewater treatment <br />systems to avoid opening possibilities for extension of sewer <br />service into areas where the Land Use Plan contemplates no public <br />sewer service. <br />The Water & Sewer Management, Planning & Boundary Agreement <br />(WASMPBA) stipulates which areas of the county can be served by public <br />water and sewer systems. It may be desirable to consider policy <br />decisions on alternative (non-public) systems and opinion on these types <br />of systems may be diverse and there has been mention in recent years <br />about alternative systems being used to create economic development <br />opportunities in areas of the county that are not designated as "primary <br />service areas" in the WASMPBA. <br />page 13 <br />Consider criteria for locations of sampling stations under the <br />Pollutant Monitoring Program. [Staff Note: this is synopsis the <br />consultant wrote in response to #43 and 44 below] <br />There could be a policy or separate criteria governing locations but staff <br />does not recommend that it become part of the UDO. One main issue is <br />that the criteria could change from watershed to watershed, issue to <br />issue. There really is no universal governing standard. <br />page 13 Consider establishing a mechanism for nutrient trading. <br />The State is examining the viability of a 'nutrient trading bank' where this <br />could occur. As of this date there is still no consensus at the State level <br />on the legality of such a program and, as a result, it is not currently <br />recognized. This should be viewed as a long term goal and we need to <br />wait and see what the State does in terms of establishing rules governing <br />such a transfer. <br />page 13 Adjust Section 7.8.2 to encourage roads to be laid out in a manner <br />that avoids significant natural features. <br />page 13 Develop guidelines for Transit Oriented Development. <br />Because mass transit facilities do not currently exist in Orange County's <br />planning jurisdiction and are not foreseen in the immediate future, staff <br />recommends that developing guidelines/standards for TOD not be <br />pursued at this time. <br />Procedural Ideas <br /> 65
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.