Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
c r } x 5 <br /> p `rx.7 .`.tIk�.8{.ts g1.�.'l).�"�`..�.�fIX, TO <br /> f}�� �,�p'�l ,.�rs' .�.�.�'i}�.,�p..�'yp�Y A441 ? 77"T.�'i pk .�]:> Ig.�� /� iV r�Y } n �4p. �� <br /> 1.. . 1, l . ty£"j z 8.�t. r Y V _. PENDING 1 . 3Y (.J .t. l.i C.�A, 14, : 1 1 .t. �.d. 0 {. t..".t .(.aJ. r ft. 1 lY (.; ' ::i..i�� D ..••�..# �J.L�'�.t. i. 1.� <''� ,i... I !':A.�"}��. .t L <br /> DRAFT 2 / 9. 0/ 02 <br /> 5 . The County should have joint approval for concept plans on <br /> parks/open space projects the County is fully or partially funding <br /> ( Objective 3 , bullet 3 ) <br /> 6 . Joint parks and open space projects should be consistent with <br /> adopted County guidelines and criteria (objective 2) <br /> 7 . The 2001 bond projects should be exempted from the conditional j <br /> approval process (objective 4) <br /> 8 . That all joint parks will be open for use by all. County citizens , as <br /> per adopted Open Facilities Policy (objective 7 - a) <br /> B . Proposed Changes to Planning Process <br /> Upon further discussion of the issues raised regarding other portions of the <br /> draft policy, the IP Work Group developed a new approach for addressing <br /> joint parrs and open space projects on a case - by - case basis . As noted by <br /> County officials at the meeting, this concept is similar to one in effect for the <br /> County and school systems for new capital projects . <br /> 1 . Information Needed <br /> The IP Work Group noted that, to pursue this new approach, additional <br /> information was needed or should be clarified: <br /> a) Clarification is needed to define which parks and open space <br /> projects are "joint" projects to be covered by this approach (please <br /> see Attachment 1 for staffs interpretation of this list) <br /> b ) Information is needed from the respective Towns regarding their <br /> own internal priorities among these joint projects <br /> 2 . Alternative Process for Joint Statement of Intent ( objective 3 ) <br /> The IP Work Group noted that a "one size fits all approach to planning joint <br /> projects might apply standards and expectations that are not applicable in <br /> each case . As each joint project on the table is unique and different, the <br /> concept of a case - by - case approach for many of the project details and decision <br /> points is suggested as an alternative . This approach is consistent with the <br /> County 's process for joint efforts with the schools, and offers flexibility to <br /> adjust the functions and plans of each project as needed . <br /> The IP Work Group recommends that the County have a set of general <br /> `guiding principles " that apply to all projects, perhaps based on the General <br /> Areas of Common Interest in section A of this recommendation . It is then <br /> recommended that each project be handled on a case - by - case basis using the <br /> following approach: <br />