P-0240 - Public Private Partnership Steering Committee

Browse Search

~~~~.~ ~nte~~~v~rl~l~nt~~ w~i ~.ng 7~~~~ ~~~t~a~ ~+~ ~ ~rh~ii ~ ~~ ~~~~t~~n ~ aut~t~.~a~.iy ~]~~Q~I~ng ~n ~ Off 1C1~ ~~m~~~ ~ ~a~issf oner ~~~~ stated the importance ~~ ~ fair searing as an ~ offioi~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ and grol~p i~volv~.~g the three g~verru~ental unite stating that. this is ~ reep~~sibility that ~~~~ along with being Chair# It wee derided that this recvwmendation ~r~~ld reviewed at the first meeting in ~ecer. ~ies~.oner ~illhoit ob~eoted to the third reoomamndat~.on stating ~a geed for this beaus na one has epreseed an interest in talking about ete~ei~~ ~f etra_territorial ~~trisdi~ticn. . ~h~ir 1~larshall emphasised that the ~.ssue was raised when ta~,l~ing about t]~e swap ~~ e~~territv~cial ~ urisdfot~,~n aid it be~a~-e quite clear that there was one vier ~f this intergovernmental co~perat~.~~ end that it was a territorial iss~e~ ~isenfranchisment wee brought ~~~.~~ several ties at the publio hearing. she feels it i~rportant that the citizens ~~derstand that the hoard ~.s aga~.nst moving people that are nit in the ertra ter~'i'~c'rial jurisdiction into the e~ttra-territorial. ~~risdiction and that ~ oint plar~nin~ is the ~olutior~. lotion gas made h~ ~ommiss~.cner ~are~, eeoor~ded h~ ~oieaioner ~iartwell to instot county members ~f the worl~i~g ir~taa~g~verr~ental group tc not consider, as a part cf their deliberations, disenfranchisement ~ ccunt~ citizens through placing them in era-territar~.ai ~urisdictio b~-t will. emphasize and encourage intergovernmental cooperation to achi~v~ planning goals. ~~~~: ~NANI~O"~S. commissioner ~illhoit suggested that a ~~~~ formal mechani$m be put iri place to ir~foa~a each other on the ark ~~ the various happenings on the different groups that each repre~e~t and ~iseio~~r ~Ialkiotis suggested that this tae reviewed after the budget ~roc~~s is finished i 4# ~.L,~~ ~~~~~~ ~1 '1~~ V ~ ~iJC31# (~~Y,~F~I~~T~TI~I~ ~ T~SIT~~I~ .E~i~T~TiL ~~J~`FER pl~.i~g hoard Cha,fr ~-arr~ Jacobs prasented the Flanni~g hoard reco~amendatfon as sited below in the motivr, for spproval Judith ~fegner~ member of the ~arrboxo ~oardt stated that there is a consensus cn the ~arrbcra hoard that the swap idea shcul.d not be pureed. 'The $~~~~ ~~~~~~ with 'khe ~~presentation ~u~~'est3on ~17d ~h~ ~'~~~~~ that the leg'islatfon submitted provides far that rep~es~~'~atf on. If the Planning hoard recommendation is adopted the ~arrboro Board will review and provide additional comments if necessarlr~ She emplaized that continued dialogue is vsr~ important. issf over ~illhoit referred to the two designations to be ests.blished for duke Forest. a questioned the rat3~~na1e for indicating that those properties ab~tttin~ duke Forest will be kept out cf the tansit~.on area and placed as part of the Rural ~o,ffer. Ae part of the sand use plan this property weld have a buffer as it was developed. Collins indicated that the buffer would be a condition placed upon and of the land developed a1on~ the a Forest line. Don Eplingx A~socfate university counselor at ~uk~~ state ghat they are in the px~oaese of atudin~ the purposes and g~al~ for the ~~ of duke Forest land. ~#e indicated that duke does not ab~ ect to and Particul-ar laud use plan presented to date. The study will take into account how ~``~;Jdevelopmea~t may ~.mpact and how that fits in.