Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-06-20; 8-a - Minutes
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2020's
>
2020
>
Agenda - 10-06-20 Virtual Business Meeting
>
Agenda - 10-06-20; 8-a - Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2020 2:29:33 PM
Creation date
10/1/2020 2:58:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/6/2020
Meeting Type
Business
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
8-a
Document Relationships
Agenda 10-06-20 Virtual Business Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2020's\2020\Agenda - 10-06-20 Virtual Business Meeting
Minutes 10-06-2020 Virtual Business Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2020's\2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
12 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 1 also want us to recognize the privilege that those of us on this call have, including access to <br /> 3 technology and access to information. We continue to encounter residents that know little to <br /> 4 nothing about the proposed RTLP project and how it will impact their lives. There are residents <br /> 5 that aren't aware that they can participate by phone on this zoom call. And people can't call in if <br /> 6 they don't know how to get this information in the first place. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 We have been in a state of emergency since March 13th because of Covid-19. Just last month <br /> 9 you all, the Board of County Commissioners, extended the state of emergency through October <br /> 10 31st. Let us all recognize the significance of that. Shannon Casell, Special Counsel to NC <br /> 11 Attorney General Josh Stein, wrote an advisory letter talking about local public bodies <br /> 12 conducting open meetings electronically. She recognized that electronic meetings are <br /> 13 reasonable for local governing bodies. She did, however state, and I quote, "When meetings of <br /> 14 public bodies are not necessary for immediate ongoing governance, I would encourage <br /> 15 postponing that meeting until a future time when the meeting can occur in-person". Does a <br /> 16 decision on the RTLP project meet this standard? <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Because we are in a Pandemic and in a state of emergency, I urge you to please approach this <br /> 19 matter with social responsibility in mind. Please postpone a decision on rezoning until there is a <br /> 20 process where ALL voices can be heard, not just those that hold privilege. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Bryan Brice said the BOCC has an important decision to make about this project, and he <br /> 23 wonders if the project is worth the damage that it may cause by proceeding. He said he is <br /> 24 concerned about the environment, and wonders if all laws and ordinances will be complied with. <br /> 25 He encouraged a moratorium on the project until all environmental issues have been fleshed <br /> 26 out, and the applicant can show all permits have been properly obtained. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Bill Ward voiced concern about the long-term environmental impacts of climate change. <br /> 29 He says Orange County has the ability to make a real impact on environmental issues, and thus <br /> 30 improve public health. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Matt Mitchell made the following comments: <br /> 33 I'm part of Save Hillsborough. I'm in favor of developing this area, but have serious concerns <br /> 34 with the RTLP as proposed. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Many members of our group were in favor of the Settler's Point project. It proposed a mixture of <br /> 37 retail and business development, much of which would have benefitted the surrounding <br /> 38 neighborhoods, and would likely have increased property values for many homeowners in the <br /> 39 surrounding area. However, RTLP, as it currently stands, presents a very different situation. The <br /> 40 size of the development is more than double that of Settlers Point and the buffers are smaller to <br /> 41 accommodate such large structures. And most importantly, Settlers Point did not include the <br /> 42 rezoning of a residential property to allow for massive amounts of vehicular and truck traffic. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 The impact of this development on local homeowners is a topic that comes up consistently, and <br /> 45 mitigation is in no way mentioned by the developer or the county. When the question came up <br /> 46 at the last planning board meeting, the developer suggested that this development might <br /> 47 actually increase property values. However, it's hard to make that case when they're planning to <br /> 48 install their primary access point 30 feet from a resident's property line. Furthermore, the <br /> 49 planned buffers are minimal and insufficient to protect the surrounding properties from the 60 <br /> 50 foot tall monolithic buildings. <br /> 51 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.