Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br /> Mr. Roberts explained that all of the attorneys agreed that the initial MOU document provides a <br /> strong framework for the working relationship of the parties. Speaking for the three attorneys, Mr. <br /> Roberts noted the document could be adopted now, highlighting that it has "some teeth" in case <br /> there's any reluctance and gets all parties to the same place within a two year timeframe. <br /> MOU Whereas Statements <br /> Chair Rich focused on the language of the sixth "whereas" statement, which states: "WHEREAS, <br /> the Parties agree that some portion of the Property should be dedicated to providing mixed <br /> income housing and other uses." Chair Rich was concerned this statement did not adequately <br /> stress the importance of affordable housing, noting the County Commissioners would not be <br /> satisfied with the level of importance placed on affordable housing in the current draft. Chair Rich <br /> asked if there was a way to highlight affordable housing more. Mr. Roberts responded the original <br /> document said "affordable housing" throughout, and this language was changed recently. He <br /> asked for further explanation from others who were part of making the change. <br /> Ms. Johnson noted there was an interest in broadening the language from "affordable housing" to <br /> "mixed income" because of the varying levels of affordable housing. The term "mixed use" is <br /> problematic because it connotes something that isn't intended. <br /> Mayor Hemminger wondered if the term "affordable housing" could be added so that the <br /> document would read "affordable housing, mixed income and other uses." She agreed with Chair <br /> Rich that someone picking up the current draft MOU wouldn't understand that affordable housing <br /> is included in mixed income. Chair Rich confirmed the description should "affordable housing, <br /> mixed income and other uses." <br /> Mayor Lavelle raised a question about the next "whereas" statement, which reads, "WHEREAS, <br /> the Parties agree that some portion of the Property should be reserved for a future school site and <br /> public recreational facility site." Mayor Lavelle asked if this language was meant to include a public <br /> recreation site in addition to the school or if the "recreational facility site" was part of the school. <br /> Ashley Moncado responded there were two separate entities, including a school and an additional <br /> recreational site. Mayor Lavelle asked about the public park and whether it would be there even if <br /> the school was not there. Ms. Moncado explained it was to be there even if there wasn't a school. <br /> Mr. Benedict confirmed acreage was designated for a public park even without a school. Ms. <br /> McGuire said that it was part of the range of uses discussed at a previous Assembly of <br /> Governments meeting two years ago, noting the change was requested following the <br /> Environmental Scan. She stated the minutes from the Assembly of Governments meeting would <br /> need to be checked to confirm. Mayor Lavelle expressed surprise a recreational site would be <br /> there even without a school, given that over the years she only heard of the interests for open <br /> Greene Tract Facilitated Discussion Minutes, February 2020, Page 4 <br />