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

Browse Search

300 Approved 10/1/08 273 Jay Bryan: I don't mind passing them on, I think its appropriate to pass it on as a part of what's come out of the 274 process and they would be passed on to the Commissioners as part of our process for them to consider and use 275 whatever why they feel is appropriate. 276 277 Renee Price: But you don't want it in the plan. 278 279 Craufurd Goodwin: I think it needs a much stronger disclaimer if that's the case that ideas have not been examined 280 by the Planning Board, no approval from the Planning Board, they are just ideas that people have thrown out. 281 282 Tom Altieri: Clarification, would it stay then in the document as an appendix or would it possibly accompany the 283 Planning Board's recommendation as an aftachment, with a disclaimer, just to say that these are additional ideas that 284 staff heard during the process that staff and advisory boards may use in the future. Something like that, so it's not 285 part of the comprehensive plan. 286 287 Board was in consensus not to include document in the Comprehensive Plan. 288 2$9 Jay Bryan: Let me go back to the Transportation piece. Let me try to proceed as quickly but as clearly as possible 290. on my thoughts about this. First of all I really appreciate all the work of the OUTBoard including Sam and Nancy. 291 We did work on the original goals and objectives with the OUTBoard in a series of meetings in a collaborative way to 292 come up with those but understood then there were some additional desire to look at them again and look at the 293 .section once Roger's draft was presented. In looking at them in general, I had some difficulty with the removal of a 294 number of the goals and objectives. Particularly ones that talked about the community, community character, the 295 environment, and so on were to be part of the value to be considered in transportation issues. I had on my mind a 296 number of comments and luckily took the time to look at the Alice Cordon's memorandum which I hope for the sake 297 of discussion tonight, that you all may have had a change to look at on page 85. In it she has proposed some 298 changes to some of the goals and some of the objectives. I hope I can take us through this at least from what I'm 299 concerned about and then share with you what I would see changing. Just going down them. 300 301 Larry Wright: Can we ask for staff recommendation first? 302 303 Jay Bryan: Sure, good idea. 304 305 Tom Altieri: Myself and of course Karen Lincoln have both reviewed the proposal from a technical standpoint and 306 actually feel that it is technically more accurate, the information that's contained in the OUTBoard's proposal than that 307 which was included in the draft comprehensive plan. Certainly that aspect.of it does definitely improve the document. 308 I felt that, based on what I heard from a couple of Planning Board members, pretty much what Jay just emphasized, 309 that during the rewrite somehow some of the overtones of environment and community character and scenic vistas, 310 and transportation that's sensitive to those things somehow that was maybe not emphasized or not completely 311 apparent in the proposal. I think that Alice Cordon's suggestion to bring back the original goal one(1)-pulls that back. 312 If the Planning Board were to accept the OUTBoard's proposal as is. One way to address some of the concerns that 313 were expressed would be to also include Alice Cordon's suggestion to bring back goal one (1). 314 315 Jay Bryan: So you've gone to the extent of saying bring back goal one (1) but you're'not making a comment on other 316 suggestions. 317 318 Tom Altieri: Correct, goal one (1) spoke more directly to some of the things I heard from Planning Board members 319 about the environment. 320 321 Jay Bryan: In a general way I feel like her revisions meet my concerns for the most part about the changes. I want 322 to make one (1) general comment about the use of the word that I really personally have trouble with and that's the 323 word corridor. I understand why it's used, but to me it gives weight to an idea that I don't necessarily know that I 324 support or that I understand the scope of it. I personally feel that roads are subject to change of course but 325 personally don't want to give any more weight to say expansion of roads, or widths, or lanes than any other value. 326 Whether that be neighborhoods, environment, community character, and so on. I understand that things do change 327 but I don't want to weight it one way or the other. Corridor implies that some of our roads be assumed to be carrying