OCPB agenda 080217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9 Kim Piracci: So, I’m not sure, I’m asking. Do you remember 10 maybe 12 years back UNC Chapel Hill was putting a lot of 430 energy into Carolina North and that has since inaudible. 431 432 Michael Harvey: They dumped the money, correct. 433 434 Kim Piracci: Oh, it’s about them having the money? 435 436 Michael Harvey: And a few other permitting issues, yeah. 437 438 Kim Piracci: So permitting issues. So is that Chapel Hill the town of permitting issues? 439 440 Michael Harvey: Yes ma’am it’s in their jurisdiction, but they’re permitting issues I think is not necessarily with the Town, it was 441 with the State. And it was with funding, and there were several other issues associated, also with closing Horris Williams. So it 442 was the perfect storm of an amalgamation of a bunch of different issues all rolled into one. But you are correct. It’s in Chapel 443 Hill’s jurisdiction. There was a SUP process involved. 444 445 Craig Benedict: A developers agreement was put together, which is State laws allow inaudible even discuss the developers 446 agreement program… It’s something like conditional zoning. You come up with a list that you’re going to build in this time 447 frame and here are the conditions so its another hybrid allowed by state, well not used that much, but it was used for Carolina 448 North. 449 450 Kim Piracci: So none of that informs this or it all informs this saying this is out of your jurisdiction. 451 452 Michael Harvey: Correct. It would be subject to Chapel Hill and obviously to the state. 453 454 Kim Piracci: But if they decided to do it somewhere. 455 456 Michael Harvey: In Orange County, I can guarantee what we’d be faced with is the argument of, “Well we’re exempt, we might 457 partner with you and try to be nice and work with you, but you’re going to do it on our terms”, which is kind of how, in the 12 458 years I’ve been working here with Craig, that’s usually what happens with us and UNC. 459 460 Randy Marshall: That raises the question that you hear from the legislature is that they don’t want us at the local level doing 461 anything. 462 463 Michael Harvey: We’re finding that out painfully everyday. 464 465 Randy Marshall: How do you see that proceeding, in terms of the kinds of things that we’re trying to do here? Are conflicts 466 implied in terms of what the legislature is trying to whole sway over or? 467 468 Michael Harvey: Well I’ll get philosophical for a moment and say this: Obviously our power to do this, to regulate land use, is 469 given by the State. They obviously have the power to limit that. I think that we are well within our legal rights to establish 470 reasonable regulation on land uses and the state has a reasonable right to say you can’t do this to a state institution. You 471 can’t do it to private institutions but their view is since we are the state we ultimately have the peoples best interest at heart so 472 we don’t need you being big brother to us, we’re your big brother. And we’re going to do it our way because we know better 473 than you. And ultimately, in all my dealings in 20 years as a planner in North Carolina, that’s been the mantra. 474 475 Randy Marshall: But the bigger question seems to be, for instance they don’t want local jurisdictions to provide better 476 inaudible to employees, or wage increases, or whatever and the state is trying to restrict those. Could they go so far as to say 477 there will be no land use ordinances of the local level, everything is free and open as far as the state… 478 479 Michael Harvey: Yes. They could certainly do that. I honestly don’t think we’re going to get there because. 480 481 Inaudible 482 483 13