|
Approved 3-6-24
<br /> 447 some of them are property owners that could be developers of housing, affordable housing, if they are
<br /> 448 approached, and they are at that level of that type of land, by opening a discussion in a practical manner with
<br /> 449 them, could then, and that is incorporated into the policies where you can, and it helps promote the right type
<br /> 450 of development, could be beneficial. I haven't heard a discussion where those major policy owners as a group,
<br /> 451 have been taken into account. That would be my comment there. Because sometimes that focus is what
<br /> 452 makes the most practical solutions. The only other question I've got, and this one's going to be a little bit,
<br /> 453 deals with historic sites, and there are many of them within the County. Now, there is the courthouse in
<br /> 454 downtown Hillsborough. That is a very significant historic site. That is public, everybody's aware of it. There
<br /> 455 are also, traditionally, many public sites that are historic that they're not publicized purposely, because if you
<br /> 456 openly publicize them, that leaves them, and they're rural areas, that leaves them very exposed for vandalism
<br /> 457 and stealing on those sites. Therefore, traditionally, whether it's England or the United States, many of those
<br /> 458 sites have not been covered. In what you're doing in land use, because some of those sites may impact
<br /> 459 potential development areas. I'm just raising this point, is there any discussion of how you've handled that in
<br /> 460 your report?
<br /> 461
<br /> 462 Leigh Anne King: Let me start with the first question. I think it's a really good idea that you raise about
<br /> 463 thinking about the next round of engagement, which honestly, is probably when the larger landowners would
<br /> 464 be most interested in engaging, when we're starting to talk about the Future Land Use Map and how that could
<br /> 465 or might change, if at all. I think that's an important idea to be reaching out to them directly as part of this
<br /> 466 process to let them know that that's part of the discussion that the County's having in development of this Plan.
<br /> 467 So, that's a really good suggestion. On the historic sites, in terms of how they might be protected or what
<br /> 468 might happen to those, I think we definitely want to be looking at those, kind of culturally and historically
<br /> 469 significant properties, as part of this process and thinking about the land use designations that would apply to
<br /> 470 those properties and how that could potentially influence them. Particularly if they're places that are valued or
<br /> 471 if you all have a prioritization of historic properties that you want to be protecting. That might be something
<br /> 472 that the County has, I haven't looked into that, but—
<br /> 473
<br /> 474 Statler Gilfillen: I would discuss that with Peter Sandbeck, who is in charge of historic preservations.
<br /> 475
<br /> 476 Leigh Anne King: So, that's something that we could definitely take a look at, as part of the more rural parts
<br /> 477 of the county, when we're looking at the Future Land Use Map.
<br /> 478
<br /> 479 Marilyn Carter: First off, thank you for a very comprehensive update to the committee. I had a chance to
<br /> 480 go to two of the three engagement workshops and a friend and community member from Cedar Grove
<br /> 481 attended the Cedar Grove workshop and I was happy to hear her report back that there was good
<br /> 482 representation at that workshop. And the participation level was very high as well. So, I was pleased to hear
<br /> 483 about that. And I'm also pleased to hear that the plan is to go into the next engagement window and the future
<br /> 484 land use alternatives discussion, to bring in other groups that might not have been represented. I appreciate it,
<br /> 485 Emily and yourself, Leigh Anne, referencing that. I noticed in the report, and this is a question, that there's
<br /> 486 several groups that are referenced, the Occoneechee tribal communities, as well as, of course, we've already
<br /> 487 discussed some of the other committee members mentioned renters, the Latino population, and so, will those
<br /> 488 three groups expressly be engaged as part of that next engagement window?
<br /> 489
<br /> 490 Leigh Anne King: Yes, I think that's one of the things that Tate Consulting on our team can be focusing in
<br /> 491 on, as opposed to 200 different contacts, we can be kind of narrowing that focus a little bit. Not that we won't
<br /> 492 continue to advertise and reach out to the other organization and groups, but that we might want to be paying
<br /> 493 specific and putting more energy behind connecting with the folks that we did not connect with this time.
<br /> 494
<br /> 495 Marilyn Carter: Okay. Thank you for confirming that. And then, this is more of an observation than a
<br /> 496 question, but when you showed, and appreciated seeing the Strategic Plan Survey feedback in this context, I
<br />
|