OCPB minutes 100213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/6/13 4 163 Tony Blake: There are costs for the volunteers to do this. 164 165 Pete Hallenbeck: The volunteer fire departments are run by volunteers and it is about a $3,000.00 cost. The county is 166 requiring these neighborhoods to have these meetings. 167 168 Michael Harvey: The issue is cost, resources, feelings that the meetings are unnecessary. 169 170 Tony Blake: We didn’t plan for this cost. 171 172 Paul Guthrie: One thing I mentioned is that once you established precedence in this area, the definition of governmental 173 uses in terms of projects, are there ways to do that communication without sending out thousands of letters. 174 175 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve. Maxecine Mitchell seconded. 176 VOTE: 7:1 (Tony Blake) 177 178 Tony Blake: I think the certified mailings should be left out and we should identify the affected property owners and not just 179 the ones within 500 feet. 180 181 Agenda Item 10: Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan – To make a 182 recommendation to the BOCC on a proposed access management plan for the Eno Economic 183 Development District (EDD). The proposed access management plan involves approximately 980 184 acres of land in the vicinity of US Highway 70 and Old Highway 10 (near Durham County). This item 185 was heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 186 Presenter: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner 187 188 Abigaile Pittman: (Reviewed abstract). At the quarterly public hearing several comments were collected and this is what we 189 came away with, that we need to prepare a summary of access management planning 101 to help educate residents and we 190 have given you some of that in these initial slides. There was some confusion over the relationship to recent zoning and 191 land use changes in the Eno EDD. Staff was asked to look at protections that could be applied on Old NC Highway 10 and 192 St. Mary’s Road was mentioned as an example. A petition was submitted by a group of citizens and it is one of your 193 handouts. We have mapped the addresses of the people who have signed it. Some petitioners have voiced their concerns 194 related to overall previously approved development plans, the zoning and future land use maps, water and sewer extension 195 plans, etc. and not so much the access management plan. They don’t like the zoning that is there. As a follow-up, based on 196 County Commissioners’ and public comments, staff has begun researching protections that may be put into place to 197 preserve the character of Old NC Highway 10 including previous protections pursued for St. Mary’s Road, secondary view 198 shed regulations, scenic corridor overlay regulations, scenic byway regulations, and scenic conservation easements. Staff is 199 recommending the following revisions to the plan based on comments: on page 4 and page 21 of the plan, to rephrase 200 language regarding bike lanes to state that NCDOT has striped the pavement two feet from the shoulder of Old NC Highway 201 10 for bicycles, and on page 26 of the plan which is the concept map, to remove the simple symbol for possible commuter 202 rail transit stop from the map and legend and revise the legend for signalized intersections to indicate that it means existing 203 signalized intersections. The staff recommendation is that the Planning Board review the plan and provide its 204 recommendation to the BOCC and the Board could also include the request that staff continue its research on protections 205 for St. Mary’s Road and report back to the BOCC. 206 207 Herman Staats: At the Quarterly Public Hearing it seems that most of the public comments I heard related to this were the 208 misperception that this was a plan to build a lot of new roads, stop lights, signals, etc. so I agree that education is needed. 209 210 Tony Blake: When we did the rezoning last year, I took a drive up there and I heard at least 4 or 5 people comment that the 211 biggest transportation improvement needed is to fix the railroad bridge on Old NC 10 because the trucks keep going down 212 there and slamming that bridge overpasses or having to back up when they realize the bridge is too low. Did that figure into 213 this plan? Are you working with DOT on that? 214 215