OCPB agenda 120716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

325 Andrea Rohrbacher: Can I jump back to a quick thing with transportation? Recently I’ve had to use a lot of public 326 transportation and I’ve been astounded at the Go Triangle, the number of buses I’ve been on where the fare boxes 327 don’t work so everybody’s riding free there. Is anybody looking at the technology involved in the card readers? I’ve 328 gotten a ton of free rides on Go Triangle. 329 330 Craig Benedict: Yes, the new buses that we’re ordering, we’re getting the electronic fare boxes so if somebody 331 goes on Go Triangle that also goes on OPT it’s more of a seamless card reading. We’re also trying to get OPT 332 linked with the time, the trip planner so that you know where the OPT buses are and that’s going to take more 333 technology and more money. OPT, based on this year’s budget, will be its own department when they hire a new 334 director. There’s a lot of coordination of course with planning and the MPO but also with the Human Services 335 Agencies and it’s been identified that not just commuter service that Go Triangle likes to do at the morning and 336 evening peak but the public service travel that occurs during the day to get to a health clinic, to get to shopping, and 337 things like that. That needs to be supported by OPT midday, with the smaller buses, the 22 passenger. I think that’s 338 going to be a big thing. But there is trouble with light rail funding, based on the state. These decisions are going to 339 have to be made very soon about where extra funding is going to come from to replace state funding and if not will 340 monies go to an even better augmented bus system to connect us to the Triangle and connect the rural areas to the 341 urban areas. 342 343 Lisa Stuckey: I have one observation. Buddy, I, Andrea, and maybe Maxecine are probably the only ones that 344 remember what the Implementation Bridge was. When we came on it was the end of the UDO revisions and this is 345 now 6 years ago. I just wonder if we need to continue with this big long bridge that’s not very meaningful anymore. I 346 think it’s kind of out of date and it’s a lot of pages and a lot of work and I just wondered if maybe it could not be on 347 the Work plan. 348 349 Craig Benedict: I think it may be time for a transition. We did mention about the quarterly public hearing November 350 21st that I’ll be doing a presentation on transfer of development rights. So this is where things go away but then they 351 come back again. 352 353 Lydia Wegman: What’s this nuisance ordinance? 354 355 Craig Benedict: The nuisance ordinance is somewhat of a dream that Michael and I have. Municipalities have an 356 easier legislative authority to declare things nuisances because it’s more urban and there’s more effects. In the 357 county, if somebody has tall grass, we can’t say anything. So what we would like to suggest is that in our urbanizing 358 area, in our pseudo municipal areas under County jurisdiction, meaning our transition areas and our economic 359 development areas, we think it’s more important to probably have a higher level of aesthetics. Not just aesthetics 360 but property value maintenance in those areas so that we can attract high quality industry. Is that going to be legally 361 sufficient? Will the legislature say the County is doing more than you can? But still, that’s on the list. I go out with 362 our Economic Development Director and in the economic development zones and they don’t look too good. And it’s 363 very difficult to say, “Don’t look over there”. But that’s what’s allowed under the County’s UDO. If it’s a health hazard 364 we can get stuff going but it takes a lot of work to get somebody to clean their property up. So some level of 365 nuisance ordinance would be great in and around our urbanizing areas. 366 367 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to adopt the report. Seconded by Tony Blake. 368 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 369 370 AGENDA ITEM 9: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 371 372 a) Board of Adjustment 373 b) Orange Unified Transportation 374 375 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 376 377 Planning Board meeting was adjourned by consensus. 378 15