Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
~ ~I Cn <br />p.5-2, lines 51 thrv 61 (Planning within Orange County) <br />The fact that OC has sole planning jurisdiction in unincorporated areas is stated twice. <br />p.5-4, Map 5-2 (Joint Land Use Planning Areas) <br />The urban services area is shown as a DASHED line on the map, while the legend shows the boundary as <br />a solid line. <br />p:5-8, lines 28-29 (Shaping Orange County's Future) <br />"...progress has been made toward realizing these goals" <br />This is a subjective statement and evidence should be provided for the claim. <br />p.5-9 (fhe Need to Update fhe Comprehensive Plan) <br />The list of bullets needs more explanation/introduction. Then, each bullet should first state the need that <br />was identified through the evaluation, followed by a statement of how that issue is addressed in the <br />current CPU. <br />p.5-9, lines 68-71 (The Need to Update the Comprehensive Plan) <br />"The guidelines for Plan review and evaluation that were contained within the 1981 Plan were not <br />followed. Guidelines for Plan evaluation and update are included in the updated 2030 Plan in Section 1.5: <br />Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures." <br />This information is inappropriately placed, based on the introductory material that precedes the bullets, <br />which indicates that the bullets are about substantive findings of the evaluation, whereas this is more of an <br />overarching finding. The bullets are all supposedly to specify how the actual CP update met the <br />needs/concerns ("areas") identified in the evaluation. <br />p.5-10, line 18 (The Need to Update the Comprehensive Plan) <br />"More emphasis is needed on Objectives and Policies that further address the following 1981 <br />Plan Goals..." <br />Objectives and Policies of what document? Is this a finding of the evaluation or a general conclusion? If <br />the latter, this bullet does not belong in this list, as it is an overarching conclusion that probably did not <br />directly result from the substantive evaluation. <br />p.5-10, line 35 (The Need to Update the Comprehensive P-an) <br />State how the sustainability indicators will be lined to the metrics developed for plan evaluation. The <br />evaluations should be viewed as measuring outputs {plan evaluation) and outcomes (attainment of . <br />sustainability indicators). Plan monitoring and evaluation in general merit a more organized and specific <br />treatment. Such a section would provide an opportunity to summarize prior assessments as well. <br />p.5-12, line 3I (Orange County Strategic Growth and...) <br />What were the relevant findings of the Phase I and II of the TDR study? Can they at least be <br />summarized? <br />p.5-12, line 41 ("encouraging appropriate development in transition areas") <br />"Transition areas" is a term used to denote suburbanizing areas around the fringes of core urbanized <br />areas. In a word, it is usually sprawl, since such transition areas are very rarely walkable or transit- <br />oriented and have high housing costs. This phrase should be recast as "encourage development in <br />appropriate locations" <br />p.5-14, Section 5.3, line 32 (The Future Land Use Plan) <br />"The Map also provides the development community and staff with clear guidance to the <br />locations in the County where re-zonings may be appropriate and where they are not. <br />The Village Project • PO Box 685 • Carrboro NC 27510 • 919-942-6114 • wwwthevillageproject.com 4 <br />