Browse
Search
8.2.23 PB Agenda Packet
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2023
>
8.2.23 PB Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2023 11:54:44 AM
Creation date
7/31/2023 11:52:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/2/2023
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
9 <br /> 111 Cy Stober: So there's two different things to consider here that I think are relevant. First of all there is a state law in North <br /> 112 Carolina that prohibits us from having regulations that exceed those of the state. So that's relevant to the water <br /> 113 conservation standards. So,we can't have a UDO standard that exceeds that of the state when it comes to water <br /> 114 conservation or water quality for that matter. The county, right now, is 50-60%of the way through its climate adaptation <br /> 115 plan, that I anticipate will have very specific goals or objectives related to conservation and sustainability. That will be <br /> 116 one of the foundational documents that is referenced by Clarion and Associates that there can be crosstalk with and <br /> 117 whether it is a cross reference to the climate adaptability plan or it is a stand-alone, but complementary goal related to <br /> 118 land use and development, I think that can be in the comprehensive plan.That could be a land use or sustainability goal <br /> 119 depending on what direction this planning effort goes.That could be not supported by the Lawrence Road project in your <br /> 120 example, and you could say it's not supportive of this goal and that is our grounds for voting against this. <br /> 121 <br /> 122 Charity Kirk: I know we've been adding amendments or little add-ons for approval of stuff... <br /> 123 <br /> 124 Cy Stober: So that's part of the conditional zoning process which is completely separate from the comprehensive plan. <br /> 125 That is baked into conditional zoning and your powers as the advisory board to the commissioners in saying "We would <br /> 126 approve this with these specified changes." For example; Water conservation measures,solar array .... <br /> 127 <br /> 128 Charity Kirk: But you were saying,for Lawrence Road that we couldn't do that .... <br /> 129 <br /> 130 Cy Stober: You can't, it has to be tied to the land use,yes. <br /> 131 <br /> 132 Charity Kirk: This is not the comprehensive plan where we can pull it to say we don't want something? It would be a <br /> 133 change to the UDO? <br /> 134 <br /> 135 Cy Stober: If I recollect, that was specific on fixtures in the schools and on the rec fields,so that would have been <br /> 136 exceeding the land use of parameters of the conditions that should be reasonably tied to the land use recommendation. <br /> 137 There is probably some wiggle room over the next two years that we can explore their broad goals that you could <br /> 138 explore. <br /> 139 <br /> 140 Charity Kirk: Which is the UDO? <br /> 141 <br /> 142 Cy Stober: No, UDO is standards. UDO is law. Comprehensive plan is guidance. <br /> 143 <br /> 144 Charity Kirk: What I'm talking about, is it changes to the comp plan or changes to the UDO that need to happen in order <br /> 145 for us to... <br /> 146 <br /> 147 Cy Stober: I would say it is probably more the comprehensive plan to establish discrete goals and objectives related to, <br /> 148 in this case, sustainability. That may crop up in this other plan and we have good cross talk about how this land use <br /> 149 document talks with our climate adaptation strategy and how are they integrated and what is and is not supported by <br /> 150 those two documents. <br /> 151 <br /> 152 Charity Kirk: I just wanted to clarify,the public engagement windows are two-month periods in which public engagement <br /> 153 is ramped up and goes through the different lists of things, but it doesn't talk about specifically how they are going to <br /> 154 reach the public. It talks about the website, and the coordination but what avenues are going to be used in order to <br /> 155 engage the public? Is it going to be mailing or do you have any kind of information on that or is it still too early in the <br /> 156 process to know? <br /> 157 <br /> 158 Tom Altieri: It's a little bit early but certainly, all of the above.We are going to have that project branded website,we will <br /> 159 be working with our information officer with the county to push out notices via social media.That equity database will be <br /> 160 used to do some direct mailing potentially email but to reach them to make sure that they are involved in those outreach <br /> 161 activities. There will also be some monitoring by Clarion in terms of participation to make sure that some of these <br /> 162 targeted groups are being reached and, if not,take the opportunity to have some targeted meetings,specific <br /> 163 geographies to reach those people. <br /> 164 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.