Orange County NC Website
19 <br /> Craig Benedict said LIDO changes should be base in the comprehensive plan, but <br /> some UDO changes are achievable without starting anew with the comprehensive plan. <br /> Commissioner Richards asked for clarification of the time periods of data used to create <br /> the current comprehensive plan. <br /> Craig Benedict said some of the trends were put together over several decades. He <br /> said various departments are responsible for different elements of the plan, and there is much <br /> better data available now than in 2008, when the last revision was done. <br /> Chair Price said some of the older data was used to illustrate the immense growth in the <br /> County over time. <br /> The Board agreed by consensus to move forward on action items 1.1 and 1.3. <br /> The Board reviewed the mid-term options. <br /> Chair Price asked if there is consensus to discontinue the voluntary density bonus. <br /> Commissioner Bedford said she agreed with the mid-term options, and wanted to give <br /> staff flexibility to mix and match. <br /> Commissioner Bedford supported the top three short-term action items, but also said to <br /> empower staff to pursue the others too. She said the voluntary density bonuses seem <br /> ineffective. <br /> Chair Price said the Board would review the other short-term items not on Slide #10. <br /> The Board decided by consensus to move forward on action items 2.1 and 2.3. <br /> The Board also agreed by consensus to no longer pursue action item 2.2. <br /> The Board reviewed the long-term options, and agreed by consensus to pursue 3.1 and <br /> 3.2. <br /> The Board did not have consensus on action item 3.3. <br /> Chair Price asked if staff could provide clarification of item 3.3. <br /> Craig Benedict said the County has flexibility to reduce watershed protections since the <br /> County exceeds State requirements in many areas. He said any reduction would be reviewed <br /> by the State. <br /> The Board did not have consensus to move forward on action item 3.3. <br /> The Board agreed by consensus to move forward on action item 3.5. <br /> Chair Price said action item 3.6 should be discussed among partners. <br /> The Board did not have consensus to move forward with action items 3.6 and 3.7. <br /> Commissioner Richards said it is difficult to make a decision on these items since the <br /> Board does not have updated information in the form of a comprehensive plan. <br /> Chair Price said for 3.3, the Board will wait and revisit it at a later time when staff can <br /> come back with more information. She said 3.6 and 3.7 would require conversations with <br /> partners. <br /> Commissioner Hamilton said the existing comprehensive plan was prescient and <br /> forward-looking. She said updating the plan would require understanding the tradeoffs and it <br /> would impact several of the items in the long-term section. She said from her perspective, <br /> none of these action items are completely off the table, but some may need to wait until the <br /> comprehensive plan is completed. <br /> Commissioner Greene agreed with Commissioner Hamilton. She said the long-term <br /> goals require identifying the values that County residents have now. <br /> Chair Price said the watershed protection item could have been worded a bit better, but <br /> it is not seeking to back down on protecting the watershed. <br /> Commissioner Greene said Orange County residents wanted to go beyond the State <br /> requirements, and she expects many still do. <br /> The Board reviewed the long-term items listed on Slide #10. Action items 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, <br /> and 3.5 action items were agreed upon by consensus. Action items 3.3, 3.6, and 3.7 will not be <br /> pursued at this time. <br />