Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />Leon Meyers: We'll see if we can get a second for the motion here, Beth, before we discuss. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Beth Bronson: Yeah, you go ahead. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Nathan Robinson: I'm struggling to get there. I don't think we've talked about the preservation of the rural character. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Leon Meyers: Nathan, hold on a second. See if we can get a second on this motion. Jeff's motion is to approve the 8 <br />conclusions that are listed on Page 265. Anybody seconding there? 9 <br /> 10 <br />Greg Niemiroski: Second. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Leon Meyers: Okay. Now Beth, I think you were first with a comment on the motion. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Beth Bronson: My comment on the motion would have to do with, sorry, I lost my train of thought. If anybody wanted to 15 <br />come back to me, that's okay. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Leon Meyers: Okay. Nathan. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Nathan Robinson: The motion on the table is to approve the conclusions, correct? I'm not convinced that the 20 <br />proposal actually maintains the chunk of land in the way it was originally intended. I think putting strips along the highway 21 <br />and stuff like that isn't really going to do anything for wildlife. I’ve seen before the standards for protecting those kinds of 22 <br />things. I think the intention was to have a big chunk of land. If this were modified in such a way that it could be 23 <br />demonstrated as more consistent with a block of land in a place, I would probably be happier with it, but that's where I 24 <br />am. I know that it's got all the creeks where it's not developable anyway, which I understand. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Leon Meyers: Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? 27 <br /> 28 <br />Beth Bronson: I remembered what I was going to comment. My comment to these, to the conclusions, would be that, I 29 <br />want to make sure that I say this concisely, so it does not get confusing. The various layers that are not into consideration 30 <br />would not necessarily be in line with these conclusions because these conclusions are only speaking to the 25 acres of 31 <br />open space. Is that correct? 32 <br /> 33 <br />Leon Meyers: And the ownership, yes. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Beth Bronson: And the ownership? Now again, we get back to that whole idea of the unity of ownership versus where 36 <br />that be contested here versus in a different authority, right? I'm not convinced that that's within our purview to be able to 37 <br />do that. There needs to be more delivery of determination on that prior to me feeling comfortable about making this 38 <br />decision. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Greg Niemiroski: So, if I'm reading this is that we are looking at what is found on the UDO, correct? Based on 41 <br />these conclusions is that I'm just kind of reading letter of the law is that if these things that we have issues with, the 42 <br />boundaries or the unity, it seems a little bit separate than what these conclusions are. Is that right? 43 <br /> 44 <br />Nathan Robinson: I think Conclusion No. 4, I'm not convinced that this preserves the rural character, that space for 45 <br />outdoor recreation. I don't quite see how this configuration achieves that in the same way that their original SUP does. 46 <br /> 47 <br />Leon Meyers: I don't believe we have any testimony of wildlife, but there is material in the agenda package that 48 <br />addresses that in a positive way, I believe, and we did hear testimony regarding the nature of the new buffer configuration 49 <br />and the fact that it more nearly addresses what the UDO is looking for in terms of buffer configuration. Any other discussion 50 <br />44