Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19881010~~ MINUTES SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 10, 19$8 The Orange County Board of Gommissioners met in Joint Session with the Orange County Planning Board for a Special Public Hearing on October 10, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Shirley E. Marshall. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ASSENT: Don Willhoit. pLP,NNI__NG BOARD MEMBERS FRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs, Chris Best, Virginia Boland, Carol Cantrell, Abbie Dickinson, Dan Eddleman, Betty Eidener, Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey and Steve Yuhasz. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Brenda Swann, and Prince Taylor. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Administrative Assistant Joanna Bradshaw, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Bell and Mary Scearbo. A. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner John Hartwell informed the Boards and citizens in the audience that the Town of Mebane is applying for 2.6 million dollars in Federal Funds to enlarge their wastewater treatment plant. He noted that the category .under which they are applying is for service to rural communities. Since the County does not have a good provision for sewer service along the western side of the County, he suggested that perhaps there is now a more realistic opportunity to move forward in implementing a sewer plan for Orange County. He asked that Orange County cooperate in any way possible with Mebane in securing funding and implementing sewex services. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ~ MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Those citizens who signed up to speak on any of the public hearing items will be recognized at the time their item is discussed. 2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None. C. PUBLIC CHARGE Acting Chair Moses Carey read the public charge. D. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Proposed Water,LSewer Policy (A copy of this proposed policy is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office). The staff presentation was made by Marvin Collins. _- In December of 1987, the Board of Commissioners set as a goal for the 1988-89 fiscal year, the adoption of the proposed Water/Sewer Policy. Objectives far accomplishing the goal were subsequently identified at a County Management Retreat in January, 198$. During the same month, the goal and objectives as well as a draft policy were introduced at an Interjurisdictional Water Seminar at the Institute of Government. The proposed Water/Sewer Policy was organized around the following five goal statements: Goal 1 - Water Supply Provide clean and safe raw water supplies to meet the current and future needs of the Orange County residents. Goal 2 - Sewage Disposal Provide adequate and appropriate sewage disposal facilities for current and future Orange County residents. Goal 3 - Urban Development Establish an urban development pattern compatible with the goal. of directing urban growth to areas where it is desirable and can be practically and efficiently served by water and sewer facilities. Goal 4 - County Involvement Establish a basis for Orange County's involvement in the provision of water and sewer services and/or facilities. Goal 5 - Financial Participation Establish a basis for Orange County's participation in the financing of water and/or sewer services and facilities. Following the introduction of the draft policy at the January 1988 seminar, substantive comments were received from: Economic Development Commission Orange Water & Sewer Authority Environmental Affairs Board Town of Carrboro Town of Chapel Hill Comments were also received from the Orange-Alamance Water Corporation but were not substantive in nature. A number of concerns were expressed by agencies and/or boards responding to the draft policy. A summary of the concerns as well as statements from the Water/Sewer Policy which address the concerns is included as an attachment to these minutes on pages~_. The Administration would like for the meeting to be considered a "working public hearing" at which comments from individual citizens, utility providers, and municipal, jurisdictions are received. The comments may then be used to further refine the draft policy. The Administration recommends that the public hearing be continued to L' `~:~r .L November 28. The comments received at this hearing will be used in further refinement of the draft policy. ~~~~ Collins reviewed the concerns and comments received which are included ,~ in a Synopsis of Comments on the Draft Water and Sewer Policy which is which is on file in the permanent Agenda file in the Glerk's office. One question that everyone seems to have concerns Orange County "getting into" the water and sewer business, including treatment, distribution and/or collection. Collins stated that the general policies listed below indicate the County's role: 1. Orange County should cooperate with its municipalities, water utility providers, and surrounding jurisdictions to identify and develop required water supplies so that available resources are balanced with existing and projected needs on a local and regional basis. 2. Orange County's primary responsibility will be to assist in the development of water resources, including the establishment of necessary organizational structures and arrangements that would operate and maintain raw water and treated water resources. 3. Raw water supply needs should be met consistent with land use plans and growth management policies, including agricultural preservation, watershed and environmental protection policies. Collins reviewed each of the goals and policies as included in the Draft Water and Sewer Policy. He stated that concerns had been expressed that not enough time was made available to allow various boards and commissions to take official action on a response to the proposal. To allow additional time for responses, the following schedule is proposed: October 24 Deadline for receipt of additional comments from citizens, utility providers, and/or municipal representatives. November l Board of Commissioners reviews revised draft and sets second public hearing date. November 28 Public Hearing. Planning Board member Chris Best asked about comments from the Town of Hillsborough. Collins responded that no comments had been received from Hillsborough but that some of the response from the Economic Development Commission and OWASA included comments from Hillsborough. County Manager Jahn Link stated that the extension of time through October 24 would allow time for comments to be solicited from the Town of Hillsborough. Commissioner Hartwell expressed agreement with the extension of the comment period. He indicated that comments from the Town of Mebane should be solicited. He emphasized that the County would not put in any lines or anything that is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan. He asked how the Extension Policy applies to the new elementary school in the Rural Buffer without creating a "strip" down NC 86. He also expressed concern with the reference to developments containing 500 acres. Collins responded that the school property is in two Land Use Plan classifications, R-1 and Rural Buffer. Water and sewer may be extended to the school as an essential public service. Collins continued explaining development restrictions within the R-1 and Rural Buffer classifications. He noted that the master-planned development projects which Hartwell referred to consisting of at least 500 acres would create the advantage of master planning for large tracts of land as opposed to "piece-meal" development. There is also the option of incentives (density bonuses) which allow for a portion to be developed as low/moderate income housing which could be one of the answers to affordable housing. Collins stated that a 500-acre limit would insure that there would be large projects to achieve goals and large master planning would be encouraged. Commissioner Hartwell expressed faith in "piece-meal" development. Commissioner Marshall indicated that she felt the large master planning _,. was good for developers who could do large projects but individuals would be at a disadvantage. She expressed the desire that individuals i:..;,,.:, be considered first. She also noted that she did not feel that a golf -~-~ course preserved the idea of "rural character" in the same way as open land. She stated the County should not go against the Land Use Plan and extend sewer lines into the Rural Buffer except in the case of a health hazard. Acting Chair Moses Carey asked about the five-year payback period referenced in the goal related to financial participation. John Link, indicated that a three to five year payback period is the most common practice in such projects. Commissioner Hartwell talked about the previous prohibition of public water and sewer in the Rural Buffer. He noted that if the County did run water and sewer lines in that buffer, perhaps the possible future failure of septic systems would be avoided. Commissioner Marshall stated that she felt once the Rural Character Study was completed, the Water/Sewer Policy could be amended and if found appropriate to allow public water and sewer in some parts of the Rural Suffer. She felt that every problem and issue could not be addressed at one time. Lindsey Efland did agree with the extension of public water and sewer services in the watersheds and rural buffer. He noted that the statement regarding the extension needed clarification and that two separate thoughts were included in one extremely long, complicated f. ~~ ~. sentence. Efland continued that the statement regarding service to development projects within the urban and transition areas was also complicated and needed much more clarification. He stated that the Economic Development Commission has not discussed the water/sewer , policy, and, therefore, it is hard to explain to prospective clients needing more clarification. He also addressed "loose ends" for those citizens who had signed cantracts for tap-ons to the Efland sewer line. He emphasize that a water/sewer policy needs to be in effect as soon as possible. Director of Economic Development Sylvia Price noted that the EDG would review and discuss the Water/Sewer Policy during its meeting on October 13th and would prepare written comments. Ervin Nicholson, Efland resident, expressed concern that those Efland residents who had "signed up for and been approved" for tap-ons to the Efland sewer line did not yet have sewer service. County Attorney, Geoff Gledhill, stated that only one-half of Phase I of the project has been completed. As funds are available, more of the project will be completed and those residents with contracts will be allowed to tap-on. John Link noted that top priority at this time is the hiring of a County Engineer. Once that is accomplished, mare progress can be made toward completion of the Efland Sewer project. Janis Burklin, Stoney Creek resident, expressed concern with the size of the sewer line proposed for the new elementary school. Commissioner ,:;,+, Carey responded that the school would have on-site systems and suggested that the School Board be contacted with those questions. John Link stated that the State has approved the site for wells and septic tanks. Commissioner Hartwell noted that he felt it was "ridiculous" to propose wells and septic tanks for the school site. He expressed concern that problems would occur. He stated that the County must live up to its Land Use Plan unless there is a health hazard being addressed. Meg McKean, Stoney Creek resident, also expressed concern with the extension of sewer lines to the area. Collins responded that the intent for the Rural Buffer is for public health and safety and schools are public facilities. Max Kennedy spoke, noting that he is concerned as a School Board member, General, Contractor and a private citizen. He noted that the school site has been perked and approved for low pressure systems. He indicated that package plants were not being approved by the Department of Environmental Management at this time. He noted personal opposition to low pressure systems and stated that he was in favor of municipal sewer lines. Ben Lloyd spoke noting that a written response to the policy will be _, provided by Orange/Alamance Water System. He expressed concern with ' the honoring of the Efland Sewer Line agreements. He stated that only ~: 87 of the 191 who originally signed the agreement have service thus far. He stated that Orange County needs to find a way by which to generate funds to honor the commitments already made as well as to make sewer service affordable for other residents and the business area of Efland. Gommissioner Carey stated that it is the desire of the County to make the sewer service a paying project. Cammissioner Hartwell stated that the County is prepared to honar its commitment to Efland residents as soon as the funds are available. Lloyd expressed concern that this be handled more expediently. Ray Roth, Stoney Creek resident, expressed concern with the possible commercial strip development along NG 86 to the school site and Stoney Greek Subdivision if public water and sewer services are provided. Elizabeth Priali, Stoney Greek resident, asked if the intent of C 2 (Extension Policies) is to allow public sewer service in the Rural Buffer for lands that will not perk but maintains a preference is for wells and septic tanks. Collins responded that the intent is to avoid the "taking" issue. Ms. Prioli asked if there is to be a policy regarding not allowing tap-ons to the water and sewer line down NC 86. Commissioner Hartwell responded that would be the intent, but it is not yet a reality. Joe Woodman, Stoney Creek Neighborhood Association, stated that he is opposed to anything that would promote commercial development along NC 86. He would much prefer that sewer and water be extended only to the school site. Dana Marnell and Debra Perry, both Stoney Greek residents, indicated they would provide written comments prior to October 24. Pat Keenan, Raleigh, indicated that sewer lines are an advantage and felt a provision should be included in the policy for extension into the Rural Buffer. Kay Singer, Chair, Orange County School Board, indicated support for the DRAFT Water and Sewer Policy. She noted that the school site was chosen because it is the area where a new elementary school. is needed. Jim Mitchell, Eno Township resident, indicated he did not understand the opposition to large scale development such as University Station. He noted small developers are unable to bear the cost of providing "affordable housing". Bob Strayhorn indicated that he felt the Water and Sewer Policy is a positive approach in the right direction and he is not concerned with the extension of water and sewer into the Rural Buffer provided it is consistent with the Land Use Plan. He noted that public water and sewer is just another part of progress, He stated that he felt the school is not acceptable without public water and sewer and that _ whatever is needed to make those services available to the school should be done. Sim Efland indicated that he felt the highest and best use of land would be available far property owners if water and sewer services were provided. He indicated that he felt tap-ons should be allowed in order to obtain funds for project completion, He asked how other residents could sign up for the sewer services and indicated support for the extension of services to lands which will not perk, .john Link stated that information regarding tap-on procedures for the Efland Sewer Line would be mailed within the next two weeks. Ted Latta spoke in support of water and sewer services to the new school site, He asked that the Rural Buffer boundary be redefined to follow roads. Commissioner Halkiotis stated that cooperation from the Town of Hillsborough is necessary for extension of water and sewer to the school site, 2. Proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance The staff presentation was made by Mary Scearbo, This is the first public hearing for the draft Environmental Impact ~~~ Ordinance. The draft is a product of a preliminary draft prepared by the Institute of Government, a series of discussions with the Ordinance ~ Review Committee and review and comments by various state agencies through the State Department of Administration. The NC Environmental Policy Act provides authorization for local authorities to adopt an EIO, To date, no other jurisdiction has done so which means there is little to draw on in terms of previous experience in developing an ordinance such as this, In the process of developing and refining this ordinance, various scenarios which can occur during the development process need to be anticipated to ensure that: - the ordinance will be implemented consistently - developers know what is expected - current and proposed timeliness are fully integrated. We wish to implement the ordinance so as to incorporate environmental review while minimizing to the extent feasible any impacts to the applicant in terms of time and cost. Scearbo emphasized that the ordinance being presented is in draft form, The Planning Staff recognizes that much remains to be done to refine the review process, This hearing is very valuable in terms of receiving input to be used in the development of a final draft. Staff is recommending that a revised draft be brought back to public hearing on November 2$, - Scearbo summarized the review process as set forth in the Environmental '', Policy Act. An Environmental Assessment (EA) would be submitted as a supplement to the development application for projects to which the ' Ordinance applies. A copy of the EA would be immediately forwarded to the State Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse would forward copies to the appropriate State agencies and publish a notice in the Environmental Bulletin which is published every two weeks. After a 15-day review in the Bulletin, comments would be collected by the Clearinghouse and forwarded to the County for consideration. The County review of the project would take place concurrently with the State review. Upon receipt of, and consideration of the State comments, the County would da one of two things: Issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI); or Require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Issuance of a FONSI requires no additional input from the developer. Tf an EIS is required, then an additional document would have to be prepared by the developer. This document would be the draft EIS. It would go through State Glearinghouse for distribution and publication in the Environmental Bulletin which includes a 30-day review period. After receipt of all comments by the Planning Department, a Final EIS would be prepared by Planning Staff which would incorporate the comments received on the draft. The Final EIS is also advertised in -:~~ the Environmental Bulletin, with a 15-day review period. After completion of the Final EIS, the project could be acted on by the appropriate decision-making body. Scearbo described the criteria to be used in determining which projects will be reviewed. A key component of the Ordinance is a list of criteria establishing when the Ordinance is to be applied. The criteria represents an attempt to identify impacts of .concern specifically to Orange County. This area needs to be reviewed as work progresses towards a final draft. The criteria now proposed are: Projects requiring a permit under the NC Mining Act, or the NC Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Act. Frojects containing areas which will be identified in the Orange County Inventory of Natural Areas. Projects containing area identified in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County". Projects in which the average slope on existing or proposed lots is greater than 1S$, and Projects exceeding 100 acres in area. -.J- The Ordinance would also apply: Where a perennial stream is to be crossed by a road, bridge, or driveway; Where a structure with more than 25,000 ft. of floor area is proposed; Where the total land disturbance, excluding roads will exceed 40,000 square feet; Where commercial or industrial water usage will exceed (some amount to be specified); and Where there are other potential environmental impacts which have been identified. Activities which are exempt from the Ordinance include: Rona fide farms Projects less than 2 acres in size, and Facilities related to the distribution of public utilities. Scearbo pointed out that these criteria apply to private development projects. Environmental review is required by the State for projects which require expenditure of public money; or an action taken by a State agency; or has a potential effect on elements of the "State's common inheritance". Scearbo explained. the various farms of environmental documentation which may be required and the associated costs. Environmental documents may include an Environmental Assessment ar an Environmental Impact Statement. The Environmental Assessment will consist of a form to be supplied by the Planning Department and completed by the applicant. The EA application will be drafted and presented at the next public hearing. The EA application will be in the form of a questionnaire worded to be very clear and easily understood. Most of the information would be known by the applicant and by preparing a standardized form, the applicant will know exactly what is needed. For projects which meet few of the criteria, the EA could be completed by the applicant with little or no additional cost. As projects become more complex, the cost will naturally rise. However, any additional costs associated with the EA are expected to be minimal in the vast majority of cases. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a more expansive document and would be required when review of the assessment indicates that there may be substantial or unmitigated environmental impacts. The EIS would include: b.~ .., ,~ , .u.: ;> a detailed discussion of alternatives to the proposed project; mitigation measures; and social and economic impacts of all alternatives. It must also include a discussion of the affected environment and environmental consequences. The Environmental Policy Act outlines the required format and content of the EIS. In terms of cost, a meaningful cost estimate is not available at this time. An estimate of $8,000 to $20,000 was given for a Stormwater Management Study, depending on such factors as size, complexity and the degree of engineering required. Costs for an EIS could fall above or below this range depending on the nature of the project. The Planning Staff intends to develop cost estimates for a range of sample projects prior to the next hearing. Scearbo reiterated that the document being presented is a draft. The Planning Staff is recommending that the public hearing be continued until November 28 and that a two-week period (as with the Water/Sewer Policy) be allowed to receive written comments which can be considered in developing the next draft. Before the next hearing Staff will be reviewing the integration of state and local timeliness, especially with regard to the processing of an EIS and where state as well as local permits are involved. A draft EA application form and cost estimates far document preparation will be developed. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if Neal Littman's concern regarding exemptions, particularly of utilities had been addressed. Planning Board member Pilkey responded that work on a Water/Sewer Policy had begun six years ago. The Environmental Ordinance is being considered due to watershed problems created by the Treyburn development. Acting Chair Moses Carey asked about the turn-around time for an Environmental Assessment to the State. Scearbo responded twenty-five to forty days. - ,john Link asked when a sample EA foam would be ready for review and Scearbo .indicated that the intent is to have one ready by November 1. Ted Latta, Environmental Affairs Board member, expressed concern that the EAB had not had the opportunity for sufficient input into the Ordinance. He indicated that he has seen no need for an Environmental Impact Ordinance. He expressed the concern that the EAB had been disbanded and that insufficient cooperation had been received from the Boards as well as Planning Staff. Latta stated that an EIS would create an undue burden on developers, create a no growth policy and eliminate affordable housing. He also expressed concern that this draft ordinance is considerably different from the one prepared by Milton Heath at the Institute of Goverrunent. =) .~':. Jim Mitchell, Hillsborough resident, expressed a concern with the cost and noted that timing is a critical factor. He asked what problems facilitated the need for such an ordinance which would mean that affordable housing is not a reality for this area. He also noted that this would create additional staff needs and that he felt mare study was needed on the ordinance as well as more publicity. Commissioner Marshall stated that requests from citizens had facilitated the need for an Environmental Impact Ordinance. Beverly Green, Durham County resident, expressed concern that the section of the ordinance regarding purpose did not sufficiently provide for public input. She asked that more input be requested from developers. Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs noted that this draft ordinance identified concerns more specific to Orange County than the one prepared by Milton Heath. Sylvia Pr"ice, Economic Development Director, suggested that perhaps a brainstorming session should be held in order to decide what types of development are wanted and to address the real concerns such as water usage and not appear so anti_economic development. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell and seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to continue the public hearing on the Water and Sewer Policy and the Environmental Impact Ordinance until November 28, 1988. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. With no further items to come before the Board, Acting Ghair Moses Carey adjourned the meeting at 10:40. The next regular meeting will be held on October 18, 1988 at 7:30 in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hi11, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Acting Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Assistant ~ - - ~ -:~`~: - SU2~iARY OF MAJOR CONCERNS E%PRESSED BY AGENCIES AHD/OR BOARDS IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT WATER/SEWER POLICY AND PROVISIONS WSICH ARE APPLICABLE THERETO Question: ,~ Oranae County ~tting~.nto the wa er and sewer • business, 'nclud'n t eatme t distribution, a d o collection? Response: Orange County should cooperate with its municipalities, water utility providers, and surrounding jurisdictions to identify and develop required water supplies so that available resources are balanced with existing and projected needs on a local and regional basis. (Goal 1', Subsection A-1 ). Orange County's primary responsibility will be to assist in the development of water resources, including the establishment of necessary organizational structures and arrangements that would operate and maintain raw water and treated water resources. (Goal ]., Subsection A-2) Question: Ts the County og ing }o rovide monitoring ~roarams for on-site wastewater disposal and water s.~y s_y_stems? Is the County financially and technicall capable of implementing such programs? --Response: A program of monitoring water quality in Orange ~Gounty streams should be evaluated,.and, if feasible, established in coordination with utility. providers and State agencies. Similarly, an on--site wastewater treatment system inspection program should be evaluated, and, if feasible, established throughout the county, with particular emphasis an water supply watersheds and designated Water Quality Critical Area. (Goal 1, Subsection B-6) Question: _ Associated with above question is the County a_aina to provide education and information praa~rams for ro~ert owners and builders of or_-site wastewater - ~ dis~~ as~a1 and water sum systems? Response: The buyers of property far development and-the !buyers of homes and structures with existing systems should be fully informed about the on-site sewage disposal characteristics of their property or the disposal site located thereon. Ta this-end, the County should establish an on-going public education program to inform home and property owners of issues, concerns, and operation and maintenance needs associated therewith. 'q _ ! ?_~ ~~~ for the orderly extension of future utility systems, that alternative systems be designed to acceptable utility standards, and that a binding commitment be provided requiring connection"ta the utility system when they are available. (Goal 3, Subsection B-2) Question: Should wa~ ter an sewer or utilit policies be ' tertw' ed w't and use policies? Response: A cooperative joint planning process should be developed and implemented among the County, its municipalities, surrounding jurisdictions and utility providers responsible for water and sewer lines to guide the extension of lines in accordance with the land use plans and policies of the affected jurisdictions. (Goal 3, Subsection A-1) Question: Should ublic water and sewer service be andator w't des' noted rowt ~-e,as, ~.e., transition areas? ~ extensions are not ~egu'red, what develo meet alternatives are possible until such se r_, vices are available? " Response: Since Transition Areas would be considered for _ __ annexation by municipalities once development is proposed ar has occurred, areas proposed for or with individual on-site or alternative wastewater treatment systems would represent a potential concern to the municipality, private association or water or sewer authority to whose system the development was to be connected. Far this reason, Orange County will evaluate the following provisions for inclusion as part of its approval processes: - a. That a proposed development within a Transition v _., Area be required to extend the water and/or sewer services of the municipality, private association or water or sewer authority to whose system the development was to~be connected; b. That minimum lot sizes in Transition Areas be significantly :.ncreased until such services were available; .and c. Where alternative wastewater treatments systems are employed, that utility easements be dedicated far the orderly extension of future utility systems, that alternative systems be designed to acceptable utility standards, and that a binding commitment be provided requiring connection to the utility system when they are available. (Goal 3, Subsection B-2) address a ub i health 'roblem serve an essential sE_ rviee or serve air Indust ial or business p~rk1 who m~ connect to the line s) and under what circumstances? ~'~ Response; Orange County may participate in providing financial assistance far a water and/ar sewer line extension only if the termination paint of the extension is an economic development project or serves a public safety ar essential public service . ~ purpose. Any connections between the beginning and termination paints of the extension must be consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Goal 4, Subsection A-2) Question: ,~,s t e County oin to exc_~ lode fun ding assistance for end stria and cammerc'a develo mert and can ro'ect fun- cr'teria be evised to remove inconsistencies? Response: Drange County may participate in providing financial assistance fo= a water and/ar sewer line extension only if the te=~ination point of the extension is an economic development project or serves a public safety or essential public service purpose. Any connections between the beginning and termination points of the extension must be consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive plan. (Goal 4, Subsection A-2) See also revised Project Sele~ctioa Priorities, Goa]. 4 -- County Involvement, Subsec~ion C.