Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-07-2019 8-a - Minutes
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2019
>
Agenda - 03-07-19 Regular Meeting
>
Agenda - 03-07-2019 8-a - Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2019 3:45:54 PM
Creation date
2/28/2019 3:42:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/7/2019
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Agenda - 03-07-2019 Regular Board Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2019\Agenda - 03-07-19 Regular Meeting
Minutes 03-07-2019 Regular Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
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
20 <br /> 1 attract industry will disappear. He said he fears that sitting back and doing nothing will result in a <br /> 2 lack of options. He said that residential development does not always break even. <br /> 3 Commissioner Dorosin refocused the conversation on economic development as a <br /> 4 county wide goal. He echoed Commissioner McKee's call for action and also called for <br /> 5 engaging colleagues in other jurisdictions. He referred to a recent request from Carrboro <br /> 6 concerning more Article 46 funding and other areas for potential collaboration in other <br /> 7 jurisdictions. He said the lack of return on investment in the current Economic Development <br /> 8 Districts makes the "one Orange" idea a tougher sell when the investments do not yield results. <br /> 9 Commissioner McKee said he is eager to see plans from the other jurisdictions on <br /> 10 economic development, and that he is more than willing to consider other ways to invest <br /> 11 resources. <br /> 12 Chair Rich said the conversation about economic development has been happening a <br /> 13 long time. She said the lack of a long-term strategy and a lack of consistent success in her 6 <br /> 14 years on the board are both disappointing. <br /> 15 Commissioner Price said she supports considering changes to the Buckhorn district in <br /> 16 light of the SWOT analysis, as well as further conversations with jurisdictions about investment <br /> 17 inside the towns. <br /> 18 Commissioner Price said the lack of economic development impact has led to many <br /> 19 young people leaving the County because of better opportunities elsewhere. <br /> 20 Commissioner Marcoplos checked with the group about their support for making <br /> 21 changes in zoning for the Buckhorn economic development district. The group agreed that they <br /> 22 would at least like to see a plan. <br /> 23 Commissioner Marcoplos suggested that the Board should explore whether or not there <br /> 24 is a way to explore development of land along Highway 10 inside the rural buffer while honoring <br /> 25 the intent of the rural buffer. He suggested looking at rezoning there. <br /> 26 Commissioner Marcoplos also supported the idea of expanding the water and sewer <br /> 27 agreements with OWASA. <br /> 28 Commissioner Dorosin redirected the conversation to collaboration with other <br /> 29 jurisdictions. <br /> 30 Commissioner McKee said funds not working well in a district could be used in other <br /> 31 jurisdictions. He reminded the group that sewer and water have only been available in the <br /> 32 districts for 7 years. <br /> 33 Commissioner Dorosin said investments have been made and that residential growth <br /> 34 could be at risk. <br /> 35 Commissioner McKee reminded the group that the Gravelly Hill sewer and water access <br /> 36 wasn't put in for residential areas. <br /> 37 Steve Brantley said the perception that the Buckhorn district is a failure does not take <br /> 38 into account the competition 4 miles away in Alamance County. <br /> 39 Chair Rich said she never called it a failure, but does not see it progressing. <br /> 40 Steve Brantley said the SWOT analysis shows that Alamance is a significant competitor. <br /> 41 He said one of the most attractive pieces of land the county has contains no roads and utilities, <br /> 42 and a lack of utilities has hindered immediate progress. He said he has seen a lot of interest in <br /> 43 the districts and mentioned the success of attracting an industry when utilities were in place. <br /> 44 Steve Brantley then identified a piece of property off the interstate that has the best <br /> 45 appeal for investment. <br /> 46 Commissioner Dorosin asked why the county cannot meet with the owner and market <br /> 47 the property. <br /> 48 <br /> 49 Steve Brantley said the property is outside the sewer/water agreement and has zoning <br /> 50 issues. He added that he is limited in what he can sell by what he can show, and the topography <br /> 51 is not ideal and houses are now in the areas. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.