Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
36 <br /> Mr. Jones added an important component is making sure we are all operating with the same <br /> information. One of the concerns we've had recently is the question as to whether the Council <br /> voted to preserve the headwater reserve and also the joint preserve. They've done that twice <br /> now—in January and in July. That wasn't up for discussion, yet continues to come up. The one <br /> big question mark between where we are now and where we were before July is the Council <br /> has said we are in agreement with many issues, including: school site, public recreation, <br /> housing mixed use. The biggest difference seems to be where these will be. <br /> Ms. Rich responded when we moved that resolution forward, nothing was binding as to where <br /> things were going to be. We weren't talking about affordable housing even though it was on <br /> the map and where it was suggested to be. The resolution was to move us to the next step to <br /> make sure we all could be involved in the environmental study and we all could be involved in <br /> community meetings. And we haven't—that has not happened. <br /> Ms. Hemminger responded the Chapel Hill board felt having labels on a map predetermined <br /> what was going to happen there and they wanted a resolution —with help from the community <br /> —that said we have the same goals, but we are not willing to put labels on those goals in <br /> specific places on the map. <br /> Mr. Jones reflected, by your account, we're even closer than I thought. <br /> Ms. Rich agreed, but wondered what a partnership looks like and how to move forward <br /> together as partners. We were all involved in creating the environmental impact study and <br /> moving forward --that was the whole part of meeting for two and a half years, but then it fell <br /> apart. <br /> Mr. Jones noted the environmental study is supposed to be moving forward. At this point we <br /> have to figure out how to get our staffs to work together on it. We've reached out, but staff, <br /> understandably so, feel they haven't been directed to work on this yet because the new <br /> resolution hasn't been approved by the boards. Ms. Hammersley affirmed that is true. Mr. <br /> Myren added a staff level environmental study has been done. Mr. Jones said that the internal <br /> study doesn't seem to be what the boards are looking for. Mr. Myren added a whole staff team <br /> working through the exercise determined how the headwaters may be reconfigured. <br /> Mr. Jones noted a good step is the deliverance of a draft MOU that is being reviewed. Ms. <br /> Hemminger said she thought the MOU sends a conflicting message and hasn't shared it with <br /> the whole board because she found it very negative. She said she thought we were going <br /> forward together and in the document the message is the county wants to divide it all up. We <br /> thought we were going toward affordable housing together. Ms. Rich interjected thank you for <br /> sharing that and explained it came out of the majority of County Commissioners not feeling like <br /> the conversations at the MMC were respected because there was an agreement that no <br /> community meetings would happen without all of the partners there. <br /> Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 9 <br />