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

Browse Search

Approved 10/1/08 2 g g 220 221 Consensus was to change "development" to "promote" 222 223 Renee Price: On page 15, I just think a little bit of wordsmithing could be used on number sixteen (16). Sounds a 224 little weak. I think what we were trying to say originally was more along the lines that "given that census the.numbers 225 are generally under counted...." 226 227 Craufurd Goodwin: That's not what this is saying. The census was nine (9) years ago and this is to remind you of 228 that date. 229. 230 Larry Wright: You could just say since these data were drawn from the 2000 census and you wouldn't have the 231 number in there. 232 233 Board was in consensus with change. 234 235 Renee Price: On page 23 of 24, you mention the City of Mebane, are we talking about the Mebane in Alamance or 236 the Mebane in Orange County, or all of Mebane? 237 238 Tom Altieri: The entity, government of Mebane. 239 240 Jay. Bryan: Let's go to the next page, 24. Are there any other changes or comments before we go to transportation? 241 Attachment K is the list that includes various ideas that have come up in our various meetings about things that. 242 should be done, could be done and its being proposed that those be attached as attachment K. 243 244 Craufurd Goodwin: Do we give any credibility to these? 245 246 Jay Bryan: That's the only thing I would worry about, is that if they are somehow attached, being an attachment, that 247 there is support for them. 248 249 Renee Price: Maybe this is where the idea comes that this should be part of the implementation phase. 250 251 Jay Bryan: No, not that Craufurd has raised it, and I raised the initial question about whether we're giving any weight 252 to it, it seems to me that Roger had though it would be nice to collect the ideas, but those seem to be things that 253 could be referred on to how the implementation is handled and be part of that process. l guess I would lean towards 254 that it not be included as an attachment. 255 256 Tom Altieri: In a few of Roger's presentations, he mentioned this big box where we would keep ideas and so forth, I 257 think I remembered one of the Planning Board members made reference that maybe this one of those items for the 25 8 big box. So, here's your big box. The question is whether to include it as an attachment and simply say it's not 259 included as part of the comprehensive plan although it would be under its cover or it can be something that staff and 260 advisory boards retain for future reference. 261 262 Craufurd Goodwin: I think if it's to go in the plan even as an attachment, it should be reviewed by somebody like this. 263 It's some sort of weight given an idea if it appears here, it shouldn't be anything just off the wall. Could there be a 264 statement in the plan saying that the staff are maintaining a file of ideas so these don't become part of the public 265 record. 266 267 Bernadette Pelissier: The other option would be the way this is phrased. Its like these might have been considered 268 to go in the plan, but what these are really is implementation. The introduction should say, not that they're not 269 appropriate at this time, which is not the message we're trying to give. The real message is something to be passed 270 onto perhaps consider in the implementation phase.. Would that satisfy concerns, so that it doesn't get lost but yet 271 will make it clear. 272