Agenda - 10-07-2008- 7b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved l0/1/08 2 9 ~ 110 Jay Bryan: The fact is that no matter what happens there will be some review done. It's just that it's so specific when 111 none of the other objectives or goals point to a specific development or possible development in this manner. It may 112 be that iYs really an idea that goes into the last box of ideas at the end. I don't know if we have consensus here, we 113 have concerns about it. It presents several possible interpretations that are risky. 114 115 Larry Wright: In the event that this does happen, this still would go through the review processes as anything else 116 would correct? We would review if they were abiding by the ordinances in the best interest of the neighborhoods 117 surrounding. 118 119 Tom Altieri: In the case of the airport authority, I think that's a little bit unknown and not fully understood yet. 120 Certainly in the case of Carolina North, yes there would be a planning process, approvals, and input. A lot of that has 121 already taken place. With regard to Carolina North, I think the proposed objective is more about surrounding areas 122 around the project if it indeed is developed. 123 124 Jay Bryan: You could just say, review County land use ordinance, period. 125 126 Renee Price: Unless you said something like, "in response to future development plans that are unknown at this time 127 that are in process" or something like this, "make it very. general that we would review land use ordinances". 128 129 Craufurd Goodwin: I say we make it stronger, say protect the interest of the citizens of Orange County. It's not just 130 the big guys flying in with the planes that we're concerned about. 131 132 Jay Bryan: So keep it, and amend if needed to protect the interest of the residents of Orange County. Board was in 133 consensus 134 13 5 Discussion about format of table, Tom will shade cells with new objectives. 136 137 Discussion on ERCD having very similar language, consensus was to go with the language used in the ERCD 138 version. 139 140 Jay Bryan: Ok, page 20 there are a number of language changes under chapter 7 141 142 Review of public comments, ECRD, historic preservation preference, letter from Mayor, staff comments. 143 144 CR-1 Discussion resulted in a consensus to include user friendly public input process but should somehow be made 145 part of the whole plan. Add additional objective. 146 147 Jay Bryan: CR-2 to remove neighboring objective, take out neighboring. Will read establish stronger partnerships 148 with preservation organizations. Board was in consensus. 149 150 Discussion on CR-5 change, Board consensus wifh comma added. 151 152 Tom Altieri: To be completely clear, the Planning Board is now considering proposed revisions from ERCD and its 153 three (3) advisory boards that happen to based upon some public comments that have been submitted. Not in direct 154 response to Mr. Magnuson. 155 156 Jay Bryan: I raised in my email for September 3~, the issue just addressing these. I appreciate that. They have 157 been and I am not going to argue greatly about it. The next ones, you have to read his letter. There's no particular 158 suggestion, just hesitancy about adding his commentary. 159 160 Jay Bryan: Suggested changes to goals two(2) and three (3)that HPC feels it is too late in the process to revisit 161 these goals. We're not hearing anyone say please consider something and HPC is saying don't do it. 162 163 Jay Bryan: On 6.4.3, rewrite the second sentence. Board was in consensus. 164