Browse
Search
OCPB minutes 030216
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
OCPB minutes 030216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:37:44 AM
Creation date
3/14/2018 5:10:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/2/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
OCPB agenda 030216
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Agendas\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
APPROVED 4/6/16 <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: Correct. A suggestive silhouette will be legal once this gets adopted. 231 <br />A more blatant depiction, if it violates obscenity rules is enforceable. I know that’s a lot 232 <br />to digest, if you all have any other questions I’m more than happy to answer them. I’d 233 <br />like to hear any other comments you have. But this is the direction we’re headed. 234 235 236 <br /> 237 <br />AGENDA ITEM 8: UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON UPCOMING WORK PLAN 238 <br />AND POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS- To 239 <br />hear an update on the Planning Board’s Work Plan which was 240 <br />recently reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners and to 241 <br />review prior Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 242 <br />population and employment projections. 243 <br /> 244 <br />Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 245 <br /> 246 <br />Craig Benedict reviewed abstract. 247 <br /> 248 <br />Paul Guthrie: Are you saying that in terms of how you’re interpreting this is that the 249 <br />assumption is that there will be no change in the city limits? 250 <br /> 251 <br />Craig Benedict: We’re going to take a look at a county wide population and then we’ll 252 <br />see if a city expands and goes into the county will be a minus there and a plus there. 253 <br />But [the total growth] will be kind of maxed out, so something that we’re going to be 254 <br />suggesting is cities should have an idea of how much their maximum density is going 255 <br />to be. For Carrboro and Chapel Hill there’s only a little more, even though there’s 256 <br />some re-development opportunities. But they still have an idea of what they put on 257 <br />their maps, what densities it’s going to be re-zoned to. And even with Hillsborough, 258 <br />they know how much available land, they know they have water and sewer limits. So 259 <br />there’s going to be some finite, so we’re going to kind of add up what the cities think 260 <br />they can do and we’re going to do… We know what some of our urban transition 261 <br />zones where we have water and sewer what that can be, that might be a little higher 262 <br />density. And we’re going to consider somewhat conservative what actually is has high 263 <br />growth potential in the county from an undeveloped land standpoint, even though it’s 264 <br />land holding capacity based. But still, the projections will be moderate out there. 265 <br /> 266 <br />Paul Guthrie: Another quick question. This assumes the existing services 267 <br />infrastructure and not expansion of services infrastructure. 268 <br /> 269 <br />Craig Benedict: Yes, we’ll take a look at what water and sewer capacity is and make 270 <br />sure we know Hillsborough has limitations with, primarily, the sewer side. The water 271 <br />side is has some potential because they have the second phase of the reservoir. But 272 <br />yes… 273 <br /> 274 <br />Craig Benedict continued to review abstract 275 <br /> 276 <br />Paul Guthrie: Do those projections include estimated birth rates? 277
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.