Browse
Search
PB Agenda Packet - Feb 5 2025
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2025
>
PB Agenda Packet - Feb 5 2025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2025 4:14:08 PM
Creation date
2/3/2025 4:13:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/5/2025
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.
/
34
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
10 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 165 This is much closer than it was the first time around,so this is giving a gauge so by the third <br /> 166 community event window,we'll be able to continue closing those gaps and get closer to <br /> 167 representation of the community. The other benchmark that I mentioned is increased <br /> 168 engagement. The project team selected the climate action plan as a benchmark for comparison <br /> 169 because it was completed recently in the community so that had both surveys and some in-person <br /> 170 meetings that they completed. So,we're kind of using that as a gauge to see can we surpass <br /> 171 that,which we have so far which is great because we've had two community engagement <br /> 172 windows and we'll have a third. So,we'll keep increasing that number. We've had 584 complete <br /> 173 surveys in total;420 of those were from the second round of engagement,so setting up our <br /> 174 processes from that first round to the second round has resulted in increased engagement which <br /> 175 is great. And then we've had 409 in-person attendees,which is an increasing number which is <br /> 176 great,too. And so, the third community event window will occur in late spring 2025, so we'll hope <br /> 177 to match our numbers from the first and second rounds. We also wanted to note that we received <br /> 178 some additional public input, both from organizational representation and some personal letters so <br /> 179 these are listed here, and they're included in the summary document that will be posted to the <br /> 180 website. Our overall takeaways about meeting our objectives for engagement is that we want to <br /> 181 continue to offer multiple ways to participate. We mentioned we had an online survey. There was <br /> 182 a short survey and there was a long survey.We found that was important to provide different <br /> 183 flexible options for those who have a little bit of time and want to be able to participate and those <br /> 184 who have a lot more time and really want to dive into those longer details. Some of what we <br /> 185 learned in the first round was applied in the second round, and we had targeted meetings in order <br /> 186 to increase and improve the representative engagement, and that was showing some of those <br /> 187 charts as well. The goal for the third round is to continue creating partnerships and connections <br /> 188 and tailoring outreach so that we make sure that we're hearing from all different members of the <br /> 189 community. And No. 3, as I mentioned,we've already hit our benchmark for increasing <br /> 190 engagement but will continue to strive to increase that number in that third round. There are other <br /> 191 charts and data about who participated but we wanted to spend more time talking with you about <br /> 192 outcomes, so that information will be in the summary report on the website. I'm going to pass it <br /> 193 over to Lee Ann King to talk about a little refresher and some of the outcomes. <br /> 194 <br /> 195 Leigh Anne King: Good evening. I think we presented to you a little bit about the land-use alternatives that were <br /> 196 prepared as part of this effort so I'm not going to get into a whole lot of detail here. This is more of <br /> 197 just a refresher so that when we talk about the outcomes from the engagement,you've got a little <br /> 198 bit of a reminder about what it is we were actually asking the public to give us feedback on. So, <br /> 199 the key question that we were trying to test with the land-use alternatives is in front of you here: <br /> 200 Which aspects of the land-use alternatives best achieve the balance of sustainable development <br /> 201 in Orange County? And through the first round of public engagement,we came up with these four <br /> 202 themes that are really helping to set the stage for what we're trying to accomplish in developing <br /> 203 the 2050 land-use plan.You can see cultivates sustainable development is kind of a sweet spot in <br /> 204 the middle with the other three themes focusing on protecting critical watershed areas, open <br /> 205 spaces and preserving agricultural lands, advancing attainable and equitable housing and upward <br /> 206 mobility and supporting climate-responsive transportation systems and economic development <br /> 207 initiatives. And so,what we were trying to get people to think about and give us feedback on with <br /> 208 the land-use alternatives was that sweet spot of cultivating sustainable development where all <br /> 209 those three, the other themes overlap. What is the best balance for achieving that when looking <br /> 210 at the details of the land-use alternatives? So,there were four alternatives that were modeled. <br /> 211 The first one is the currently adopted future land-use map with some modifications to update <br /> 212 based on Hillsborough's most recent comprehensive plan update. We wanted to reflect their <br /> 213 current policy and growth area, and then also the growth area for Mebane,which is not a <br /> 214 completed plan at this point, but we knew what their study area was based on some of their <br /> 215 preliminary information that was shared as part of that process. So, that's really kind of the <br /> 216 foundation,the benchmark that we were working off of and looking at the other three land-use <br /> 217 alternatives. And again, as Emily was saying, the point here was not to suggest that one of these <br /> 218 would be the preferred future land-use map for Orange County but there were ways to test <br /> 219 different ideas, particularly those three themes that I was just mentioning and different shapes in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.