Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br /> Ms. Lavelle offered a third approach of working on both the EIS and the MOU simultaneously. She <br /> said it was her understanding that the EIS may take several months given the timing of the <br /> seasons. She noted the overall MOU document could also take a long time to develop. She <br /> indicated the EIS could be a "hard-stop" for Carrboro, and therefore, focusing on both documents <br /> simultaneously would be the best use of time and resources. <br /> Ms. Rich emphasized the importance of the MOU/Government Document as a guide to how the <br /> group works together on the EIS. She said was not comfortable doing an EIS without going back to <br /> her Board and stressed the importance of understanding how to all move forward together. Ms. <br /> Lavelle agreed, noting she was comfortable assuming that all three Boards would be involved in <br /> the process. Ms. Rich explained that part of the MOU/Government Document will be to specify <br /> how the Boards will be involved in the process, including their respective roles. <br /> Ms. Lavelle stated she would be interested in staff perspective on this topic, especially given <br /> Carrboro's interest of a streamlined process so the group can really talk about things. Ms. Rich <br /> added it would be helpful to have a legal perspective as well, given that everyone would have to <br /> put money towards an EIS before there is an official MOU. <br /> Nick Herman shared the observation there needs to be an understanding of the nature of the <br /> relationship between partners. The partners need a clear understanding of the relationship, who is <br /> in and who is out and under what terms. In the absence of that understanding, the parties will not <br /> know who is going to be making decisions about particular areas. Ms. Rich said she and John <br /> Roberts had had a similar conversation prior to this meeting. <br /> Ms. Hemminger added that the partners have an MOU the group has operated under for the last <br /> eight to nine years. Even though it is not the best document, she said, it has allowed the group to <br /> do some projects already, including the water and sewage infrastructure work. <br /> Craig Benedict stressed the importance of talking about the context of the roles. With the EIS, are <br /> we looking for a regulatory outcome such as what are the minimums required for the Wetland <br /> preservation or is there an interest as property-owners that should be considered? When you get <br /> into a regulatory framework, you look to the Code, but if there is an interest to go beyond the <br /> Code, then that has different implications. <br /> Ms. Rich asked John Roberts to speak from the County perspective. Mr. Roberts explained that <br /> having a defined MOU/Government Document is more important to him because some County <br /> residents will think that one environmental study is not enough and they will pressure Boards and <br /> staff to do more. Before an EIS can take place, he said, the group needs parameters for the study <br /> Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, December 2019, Page 4 <br />