Meeting 081795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Meg McKean mentioned that the plans presented by the students were intended to be reviewed by the Work Group. It is important to apply the principles this group agrees upon to those plans. Then the results could be distilled into a new plan. She suggested that one of the students' plans be chosen for review at the next meeting. Everyone could read it carefully prior to the meeting and come with suggestions and comments to the meeting. Bob Hall suggested that the next 20 years be considered so that population density could be determined for the future. Renee Price suggested reviewing types of development and how much of each type of development would be optimum for the community. Lee Rafalow suggested that a small group be empowered to create a "straw" plan to be reviewed at the next meeting. The plan would suggest what the Stoney Creek area would look like 20 years from now. Judd Edebum suggested that the lower buildout number be used to develop a plan that accomodates that number in a creative way so that the 5 rural character goals are preserved. Meg McKean felt that the plans need to be critiqued and then distilled into something that the group can reach consensus on. Bobby Nicholson felt that it was important to formulate a direction before reviewing the plans. If not, he was concerned that the group would get bogged down. Verla Insko summarized that there were three suggestions on the floor. The first was for a subcommittee to take the guidelines, Land Use Plan, and population number and develop a plan. The second suggestion was to review each of the plans presented by the UNC students. The last suggestion was to pick only one of the previously presented plans and work on that one as a group. Keith Cook suggested that all five plans be considered by the group at the next meeting. The elements of each plan that gets support from the group could be used to create a plan that has consensus. Bob Hall suggested that different members of the group present the strengths and weaknesses of each of the five plans. They could indicate how each plan could be used to accomplish the group's goals as well as point out inherent weaknesses. Renee Price suggested that a weighted voting process could be used. She felt that this process would work very well. Verla Insko suggested that a mechanism be established for the next meeting so that the plans could be reviewed systematically in order to come up with a goal that would incorporate the rural character guidelines. David Stancil mentioned that he felt the need to stress the importance of making sure that all of the goals had been completely and adequately covered. He felt that some issues had not been discussed and that some goals appeared not to have been completely discussed. He encouraged all members to be sure that they felt that they had adequately addressed the whole range of goals. There is a danger in skipping steps in the process because assumptions may be made that need to be addressed further at a later date. He felt that it was important not to skip steps in the process. Bob Hall agreed that several issues had not been adequately addressed. One of those was respect for property rights. The community being discussed -here is-Pretty much developed already. The undeveloped land