Orange County NC Website
DRAFT <br /> 900 <br /> 901 Tom Altieri: And if you haven't had time to look at it yet, please do as you have more questions. I can <br /> 902 be found pretty easily. Let me know. <br /> 903 <br /> 904 Whitney Watson: Tom, I have a question, and I was wondering if in the workshops, discussion came up <br /> 905 about commercial development versus residential development, because a lot of this <br /> 906 information is oriented toward housing development. And so, one of the questions would <br /> 907 be, can these community systems be scaled up to the point where they could support a <br /> 908 commercial or retail kind of setting that would allow for what I've heard, a grocery store <br /> 909 desert in like northwestern Orange County? <br /> 910 <br /> 911 Tom Altieri: At the retreats we did not have that specific discussion. Some of the examples that we <br /> 912 found in North Carolina were serving some shopping centers. So, the short of it is, is yes, <br /> 913 that technology could be used for a grocery store out in a rural area and some adjacent <br /> 914 shops. And I'm trying to think of an example we saw that's not too far away. It's to our <br /> 915 west. Maybe it was Winston-Salem area. Anyway, I could share an example and some <br /> 916 pictures that I found if you're interested in that. <br /> 917 <br /> 918 Whitney Watson: Well, I just wonder, because one of the things that seems to come up frequently is the <br /> 919 development along the interstate corridors makes a lot of sense. Why not put all of the <br /> 920 warehouse buildings there? Easy access on and off the highway and so on. But there's <br /> 921 also a question about displacement of farmland, of families who have lived there for <br /> 922 maybe one or two generations, or suddenly their neighborhood is overwhelmed by these <br /> 923 giant concrete blocks. So, if there's an opportunity for that kind of commercial <br /> 924 development to happen further out and be clustered with both residential and commercial, <br /> 925 because that's the other thing, especially in the fact book, I was glancing through that; <br /> 926 transportation, if you live in the northwest, northern half of Orange County, you got to go a <br /> 927 long way to get to some of these amenities or to some of these workplaces. So, I guess <br /> 928 I'd like to see, as we think about land-use planning, encouraging us to think about <br /> 929 alternatives, and this is sort of what, I think, Charity, you were leaning to, is this <br /> 930 opportunity to have lower-cost, less-than major infrastructure for septic sewer and water. <br /> 931 <br /> 932 Tom Altieri: Right. And I think that's why we, in the preliminary draft and when we took alternatives <br /> 933 out for input from the public, we had that combination of the rural conservation <br /> 934 subdivisions and some ideas on where those could potentially locate used in combination <br /> 935 with the rural activity nodes, which could provide some of those non-residential <br /> 936 opportunities. <br /> 937 <br /> 938 Cy Stober: I appreciate the comment, and I believe, if it's not in the fact book, it certainly was part of <br /> 939 the discussion we've had with the commissioners, is yeah; is it a worthwhile county <br /> 940 investment of revenues, and in this case, dedicated economic development tax funds, to <br /> 941 invest. I mean, it's been done for economic development elsewhere for storm water, so <br /> 942 regional storm water treatment. So, you build large storm water devices, and then you <br /> 943 can allow the buildings to grow up around that. And you're taking that regulatory <br /> 944 responsibility off of those developers, and reducing their upfront costs. Same thing to be <br /> 945 said possibly for wastewater treatment or well access. And is that a direction the county <br /> 946 wants to go and to activate some of these rural activity nodes so that we reduce the <br /> 947 carbon footprint and the vehicle miles traveled in these more rural parts, particularly in <br /> 948 northern Orange County where we have, by the social vulnerability index, our most <br />