Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080825 APPROVED 10/7/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING August 25, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, and Moses Carey, Jr. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Alice M. Gordon and Mike Nelson COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill and Brian Ferrell COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Craufurd Goodwin, Renee Price, Judith Wagner, Larry Wright, Bernadette Pelissier, Jeffrey Schmitt, and Brian Crawford PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Knight and Michelle Kempinski The meeting was called to order at 7:33 pm. Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Nelson were unable to attend because they were out of town. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment, Planned Development Petition for Efland Commons Single- Family Subdivision: Review of a Planned Development (PD)/rezoning petition proposing the development of a 45-lot single-family subdivision on 12.88 acres of land in Cheeks Township at the northwest intersection of Tinnin Road (SR1313) and School House Road (SR1314). Orange County Planning Board Chair Jay Bryan introduced the Planning Board and Planning Director Craig Benedict. Craig Benedict introduced this item. This is a zoning atlas amendment from the R1, Rural Residential zoning designation to the Efland Commons Planned Development. This is located in the Efland Urban Transition Area, which is noted on the Land Use Plan. It is located near Efland-Cheeks Elementary School, north of US 70. This development also includes a Class A Special Use Permit. Planning Supervisor Robert Davis made a presentation with maps and photos. The purpose of tonight is to receive evidence by the petitioner and the public. The process includes a joint public hearing of the BOCC and Planning Board, which is this meeting. The project proposal then goes back to the Planning Board for a recommendation on October 1St. Then the Planning Board recommendation would be coming forward from the Planning Board on the Atlas Amendment to rezone. Also coming from the Planning Board would be a recommendation on the Class A SUP based on findings of Article 8. There would also be recommendations on the preliminary plan and subdivision conditions. This rezoning is necessary in order to accommodate the density of this project. Without the rezoning, the 12.5 acres would allow about 11-12 homes. With the rezoning requested, it would raise the density to 3.5 units per acre, reducing the lot size down to a 5,000-square foot minimum. These types of homes are referred to as "patio homes." He showed some pictures of surrounding properties on powerpoint. This development is in the Upper Eno Protected Watershed. In this watershed, the development could go up to 30% impervious surface. There would be some detention devices. This project is also in the Neuse River Basin, so it would be subject to the nutrient removal standards. This is the northern most piece of the 10-Year Transition Area. It is also completely within the Efland area overall sewer system plan and is also in the primary service area for water by Orange-Alamance. There are some issues that need to be addressed regarding fire protection. Also, DOT acknowledges that the roads are probably overdue for resurfacing. The roads would potentially be resurfaced at some point, should this project be approved. He showed a picture/map of the proposed project on Powerpoint.. The Planned Development requirement is a 100-foot setback around the perimeter of any planned development. The buildable portion of the lots on the Flexible Development Plan is very small because the remaining portion is protected for adjacent owners but non-buildable for the owner. The developer has asked that this particular plan not be considered for the rezoning. The staff is requesting that one of the water lines be extended out into the back of the subdivision and that one of the lines extend and connect to Richmond Hills. According to the Fire Marshal it would help with equalization of pressure and would increase volume. Orange- Alamance is in agreement with all of these changes. He made reference to the hand outs, i.e., Certification Letter, the Sheriff's letter regarding servicing of this area, and the revised biological inventory. There was a two-acre parcel left out in the original inventory, and it was revised. The findings of the inventory were not changed. Deputy Clerk David Hunt swore in or affirmed all speakers. Robert Davis: With regard to the 100-foot perimeter, there would have to be a finding to the effect that what is being offered would meet, to the same degree the standards that are in the ordinance. The way this plan is set up, the developer would like to take advantage to lower the costs and also to make School House Road more like a residential street, and have these lots be able to front on the existing street rather than set the project back 100 feet which takes away open space and does not have any access on the street. The other thing that he developer asked for was to not build sidewalks. Staff recommends that this not be approved. This project is within a transition area, there is a school nearby, which has a trail behind the school and there are some options of putting trails in there, which the developers think they would prefer to do rather than sidewalks. The sidewalks are a requirement of the SUP and also in the findings that are in the ordinance for subdivisions. I don't know how you make a better case on that, but that is one of the other ones that the developers are asking for. Those are the two deviations from the ordinance standards. One other thing noted in our conditions ---the storm drainage for this is broken down into sub-basins. This storm drainage right here (pointing to Powerpoint slide) goes right across those lots. So, we're saying something would need to be done here. We're asking for a little bit of a buffer here, something to give it a break between this property, across 5, 6, and 7; and also take the storm drainage subsurface and release it over here or reorient those lots where you don't have storm water running across the back of a very small lot. We don't really want that situation. Commissioner Carey: What kind of line is on the easternmost part of the property? Is that an easement going up and coming down? Robert Davis: That's a Duke Power utility easement that's existing. It's in my report, I didn't mention it. They are going to request that that line be relocated probably along the right-of-way, so that the lots won't be encumbered by power easements. They would have to get encroachment agreements from DOT on that. David Rooks: I'm the attorney representing the applicant in this case. I have not been sworn, and I'm not going to testify. I am here as part of the Lawyer Relief Act of the State Bar in adopting rules with respect to project judicial proceedings, which said that folks can't be their own advocates, they have to have a lawyer to come. So, I'm simply here being a traffic cop. I am pleased to represent the applicant near School House Road Partners, LLC, and their members are here tonight. Immediately to my left is Mr. Bob Barrett, further to my left is Mr. ?? Edwards, and then behind me is Mr. Anthony Hughes. They are the principles in the School House Partners, LLC. They have this property under option from the family that owns this. The things that makes me want to be here is that this is an affordable housing project and they are coming here targeting houses that will be affordable to folks up to 80% or lower median family income, which we all know we need desperately here in Orange County. At the end of the presentation I will say more if necessary, but at this point I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Bob Barrett, who is going to make a principle presentation for the applicant. Bob Barrett: I have been sworn. Thank you very much for seeing us tonight. I'm with School House Road Partners. We've been working on this project. We conceived it in October of 2006 and have been working with the Planning Department, who has been doing a very diligent job in working with us to get through the project and to deliver the things that are necessary for approval. One of the things that I'm going to be presenting to you at this time is the need for workforce affordably-priced housing in Orange County. I brought along some information that I'd like to pass out to the Planning Board and Commissioners. What you're receiving is the most recent analysis from the Triangle MLS, which does a summary market update every quarter. This is the full report, what I've provided for you is the information that's regarding Orange County specifically. If you'll see on the first page, it's very simple, there's not a lot here. The comparison for single and multi-family homes sold in this first half of the year in Orange County. Comparing the average price of homes in Orange County, you can see that we're currently, this is the most recent information, at $342,740 for an average priced home in Orange County. You can see from the other counties that are listed there that there are much more affordably-priced houses around us. This pretty much explains the whole purpose of this project. We're here to provide housing for people who want to not only work in Orange County, but also live in Orange County. Further, if you will turn to the second page, where Orange County is highlighted further down on that, you'll see in the houses that have been available for sale in Orange County in this price range, which we are targeting $150,000 to under$200,000, you will see that over the last three years, well actually in the last year between the first half of '07 and the first half of'08, we've had a 56% drop in houses that have been built and made available in this price range. It's not getting any better; it's getting a lot worse, and we're trying to do something about it. The houses, if you've seen in our other presentation, will be on average three-bedroom, two-bath homes, with a garage. We're trying to do everything that we can to provide everything for this priced house. These will include all appliances, and we are working at becoming an extremely energy efficient community for each of the homeowners. We've also worked on finding affordable financing for this. There's the USDA loan program currently that this location qualifies for that will enable qualifying homeowners to get 100% financing on a 30-year mortgage at a low-interest rate, and it's easier to qualify than FHA. We're trying to think of everything for the homeowners. Following this, you'll see what's available currently from the Triangle MLS for sale. You have a market analysis that shows the houses that are available for sale in the Efland-Cheeks school district. You'll see here that the average price per house available in this immediate area is costing $331,000. There are details of some of those houses. Following that in the final sheet there is a house for sale on School House Road for$74,000. A 967-square foot home that was built in 1951. We feel that, with all of the improvements that we're bringing to the neighborhood such as improved water and sewer and improved fire protection, improved roads, and just a generally improved style and type of house, that we will increase the value of the neighborhood and the area surrounding. John Harris, our engineer, is here with us. Renee Price: Do the properties on the other side of School House Road already have water and sewer? Robert Davis: Yes, School House Road has a three-inch water line, and there's about a three- inch line also on Tinnin Road. It's on the water map. But it's not good enough for fire protection or anything else. Even if they laid a new line, Orange-Alamance would leave the line existing as it is until it failed. What it would do is put fire hydrants closer to the rest of the neighborhood on the southern end of this neighborhood here and at the northern end of School House Road and at the northern end of Tinnin. It wouldn't necessarily provide any pressure increase on Tinnin back down towards 70, because the line would be coming up the back side of the lots. Potentially, in the event of a failure they may be able to hook up on the back side. There will not be any significant water pressure increase for School House or Tinnin under this. Bob Barrett: I was reminded, I should address the two issues that were brought up that we were looking for relief on. This is an affordable housing project. We're putting everything we can into these houses to really raise the quality of the houses. Every penny counts. Normally, as I pointed out, you have houses in Orange County that are over$300,000. With the current market conditions and the unstable cost of building right now, are doing all we can and have to make do with everything we've got. So, when we talk about, unlike some of the other areas surrounding us that don't have sidewalks and we have to cover the cost of sidewalks in this development, it becomes very difficult to maintain that budget. Additionally, we're asking for the conventional plan because of the affordability of the houses. With the flex plan, that has the 100-foot buffer around the property, not only does it make it more difficult for the houses to be located, we are also under the strain of only being able to build around 20-22 houses. At 45 houses, we can afford to do the project, it makes it worthwhile, and we're providing houses for more people. The way we've got this designed, we hope that, with the green space, the houses backing up to the green space, community residents will feel like they've got larger lots and that they've got more to do there. I hope you will consider our request. John Harris (Project Engineer): I was sworn in. With regard to the water line, the fact that we're putting a new water line in and looping it will increase the pressure of the three-inch line. You can't imagine the amount of pressure that will increase by coming in from two different directions instead of just from one direction. You're pushing water through a small line versus pushing it from both ends, it does increase the pressure. I don't imagine that the water utility wants to change over all those services. They probably will leave them as they are on the three-inch line. They will have a little bit better pressure. And then as things need to be repaired, they'll come out and switch it over to the new line. Also, the fact that the fire hydrant is in this subdivision are there, that increases the fire serviceability. So that's a benefit also. I believe the existing sewer line on School House Road is an eight-inch line and it's an old line, but it's very functional. Jay Bryan: I think we're going to hold the questions until after the public gets a chance to speak. PUBLIC COMMENT: Frederick McAdoo: I've been sworn. I live on Fuller Road in Efland. We just have great concerns about 45 homes coming to this small community. This community was built as a family community. Yes, people need places to live. But I would like to welcome ya'll to our community just to visualize what's going to have to happen such as proposed traffic in our area. I notice everything that's going on is bypassing us, going around the back side and the upgrades, they're bypassing this circle here. We're not gaining anything out of this project but traffic. On the other hand, if you add 45 homes to this small community, what are our kids going to do? Think about it, 45 homes, 90 kids, no activities. Yes, we have parks and recreation, but when it comes to low-income homes, they can't afford for their kids to participate in these events. For two kids to play football for the recreation department is $210. If we're going to benefit and make it affordable, right now, if you look at Tinnin Road, it can't handle the traffic. Yes, everyone needs somewhere to live, but in order for this project to work, there has to be no excess from this development. They're never going to be able to go to Ashwick, that's not going to happen. If you're talking about making the entrance going around Ashwick back up to 70, that's not going to happen. Ashwick is approximately 150 feet away. That road is going to have a turn lane from Ashwick all the way up to Tinnin. Once you get past Tinnin, you're going to have School House Road. In the mornings, the traffic is already heavy. We're talking 45 homes in a 12-acre lot. My next question is, is this R5 only for this project or are other members in the community allowed to do such things as the R5? Annie Whitted: I have been affirmed. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm not also here to speak against the project entirely, only against the roads. The community cannot handle 45 homes. The roads are in poor condition, it is not a connector road. Tinnin Road is going to bear the brunt of the traffic, because most people are going to take the straight shot, and Tinnin Road is the straight shot. About the water lines, the Planning staff is proposing where the water line is going to go. Three-inch water lines in the area will not be upgraded. It's going to go around behind the existing streets of the community, coming in the back instead of talking about connecting to Richmond Hills for future whatever and connecting over to Ashwick development. What about the existing community that's going to bear the brunt of this project? Three-inch water lines, no fire hydrants, no additional protection for fire. Also, in the project, they have named the possibility of future upgrades or future right-of-way assignment for proposed streets and existing streets. I wanted to know if these that they want done for this development, can they do it within the existing right-of-way. There is a 50-foot right-of-way, and the pavement on the street is currently 18 feet. They're proposing it to be widened to 24 feet. We're going to get a lot of traffic. It's going to completely and forever change the integrity of that community. Lottie Riley: I've been sworn. I'd just like to make comments about, as you notice as they were talking to us, and you saw the visible condition of the roads as they currently are, and he talked about the sewage line and what will happen or might happen. We have no guarantee that the roads will ever be repaved, and we have no guarantee when something is wrong if it will be fixed. They are talking about putting three and a half houses on one acre of land and it's going to be an overcrowded community that is really very close to a school. Our current sewer line is already serving Efland-Cheeks Elementary School. Just to tell you the problem we had with the sewage when they built the new Gravelly School on West Ten Road, it wasn't ready, they had to pump the sewer over there on School House Road. The odor that the community endured with that was awful. That's a sewage problem. If you're going to put that many more houses, and we couldn't even handle Gravelly's sewer for a few months. That's a concern for me. My other concern is that, if you notice on there, there are streams and rivers throughout this land. I never heard anything said about fences or how they will maintain those streams or what they will do for these streams for the concern of the children. School House Road and Tinnin Road, those roads are too small to make them wider to consider the traffic flow, and more people now are dropping their young children off at school. They can't leave these little 6 and 7 year olds to wait on the bus. We talked to the Sheriff's Department, who put someone on duty just to help direct traffic now so people can get in and out and drop their children off to school and they can go on to work. If we're going to put in 45 more houses, who's going to handle all of that traffic of going to school and people trying to get into work? Is this going to be an overcrowding for Efland-Cheeks Elementary School? If that's a problem, then we're going to be looking at our younger children being bused to schools further away from our community, which we would not like to see. And also, the easement across the property, the owners over there have not decided how they want to use their land. They may run into difficulty in trying to get an easement. Chair Jacobs: What is the current density in the surrounding neighborhood? Robert Davis: It's all R1, which is 40,000 square feet. It is a one-acre density. Chair Jacobs: What's the density of Ashwick? Robert Davis: Ashwick, I think came out to, it's more than 1. It couldn't exceed the density of the zoning, and the zoning is 40,000 feet. What happened there is that it went down on lot size, but the difference was picked up in open space. There's 56% open space in there, which worked out to one-acre density. Geof Gledhill: Chairman, there was no rezoning requested for Ashwick. Chair Jacobs: And Richmond Hills, is that also? Robert Davis: Yes. They're all R1. This would be rezoned. Chair Jacobs: You mentioned that some of the open space for Ashwick was part of the lots? Robert Davis: There was a back portion of some lots in the 100 foot building serback area. The HOA land primarily backed up to McGowan Creek. What happened on that one, it followed the conventional plan, but met most of the standards of the flexible plan. So what you had were portions of the open space that were totally under control of the homeowner's association, and then other portions along the perimeter where the open space exceeded 33% when we asked for some additional land. The tradeoff on that was to not take any more lots than what they had already started out with. So what we ended up with were about 10 or 12 lots that had a 100-foot building setback on private property. The case that we had a couple of years back was a gentleman had built his house and his deck right up to that 100 feet line and then wanted to build a wood workshop. We recently had a request for a swimming pool. Churton Grove has a similar 100-foot buffer. When they own it and buy it and see the property corners all the way out there, it makes it more difficult to explain to someone that you can't build anything on it. That's why we prefer HOA owned open space. In this particular one, the property lines are clear, you know where the open space starts, you know where the property lines are. Chair Jacobs: At Ashwick, we were accommodating the building to enable them to have more lots by having some of the property on private lots, were we not? Robert Davis: It ended up appearing like that. It looks different than it was. What actually happened was that there were additional requests for open space that went well beyond the 33%. When we got it to 56%, it was either give up on the difference between the 33 and the 56, or place the restrictions on those private properties. We chose sort of a mixture of the two. Unfortunately, the ones that we put the buffers on are the ones where they want to do something. As we've said in the past, I think Craig's mentioned it also, we probably need a more urban style flexible development than the one that works with the big developments. This 100-foot building setback runs through all of the ordinances— EDD, Planned Development, Subdivision Flexible Development; it's just that magic number that keeps popping up all through the ordinances. It's treated almost like a one size fits all, but it doesn't. Chair Jacobs: So, in a special use permit, you can request a different property setback. Robert Davis: In a PD process. Chair Jacobs: Mr. Barrett I think it was said, in the conservation option there are 20-22 lots, I counted 28. Which is it? Robert Davis: It's probably 28, I think he's looking at it from can you even site a house on it. Chair Jacobs: I have a question for the attorney. We have a study underway so we would actually get full cost of service for the Efland sewer system. Can we require this subdivision to pay the full cost of service, which is listed here as a condition of approval so that we don't have to subsidize these houses too just like we're doing for the $250,000 homes in Ashwick? Geof Gledhill: I think the rates for the sewer system approved by Orange County, have to be established in the County's sewer system rates. Chair Jacobs: I'd like to know, as part of this process, when we're going to get that study completed. It's underway. It's been underway for half of my lifetime. Willie Best: I'll get that information back to you. Chair Jacobs: In looking at the conventional design with all of those, I think it's nine lots on School House Road, are we going to require joint driveways, or are we going to have nine driveways? Robert Davis: What we were trying to do was those on the corner would actually take side street access. I think it ended up, it's in the actual resolution, I think there was about six of them that would do that. This was a starting point. We can certainly get to that point. I didn't put them in there at this time. I believe it was non-vehicular on lots 1, 7, and 10 on Tinnin Road and lots 15 and 41 at the new intersection with School House Road. Chair Jacobs: So, it's certainly feasible to do joint driveways for 8 and 9, 11 and 12, and 13 and 14. Robert Davis: Yes. There was one clarification I kind of wanted to get in. It had to do with the services of the schools. We did a fiscal impact attachment, and that came back negative. Under the financial impact, you can see that. I failed to point that out. Currently, the capital cost per single-family is $5,364 and the impact fee is $3,000. Also, staff is recommending the payment in lieu impact fee and not the public dedication for parks. That would work out to about $19,000. Question from Planning Board member: Have you had any discussions with the County's housing department? Bob Barrett: At the beginning of our investigation of this project, we looked at doing the project with community funds and County funds. We felt that there were too many restrictions on that for the homeowners. But we are working with EmPOWERment, as you'll see in the packet. And we're donating $500 for each house built to EmPOWERment, and we are making up to 10- 20% of the houses available for EmPOWERment. Brian Crawford: I didn't see anything in here about any type of market or capture study to see how you would sell the lots. Bob Barrett: From a marketing standpoint, we've been in contact with the University of North Carolina and the University of North Carolina Hospital and discussed with their human resources department the availability of housing available for the workforce for those two institutions. They have found that it is a serious issue with them. We in fact met with Mr. Evans, the Director of the Carolina North project, to discuss how they plan to address affordable housing in their project. They haven't made any commitments yet to that and are still taking it under consideration. We found, in talking with human resources, and this is in general terms, from their departments, that each of those institutions hire approximately 1,000 people a year. And we're talking about staff positions. These are not the upper positions, the six-figure salary positions. These are folks that are just working at the hospital and university. There is a transition, of course, but that is where our marketing effort is going to be strongly based. We do know that there will be quite a demand. There's quite a pent-up demand for this. According to the planning study that was done for the County, we found that there were thousands of people commuting outside the County. It was a very lopsided community. That is, people that live in the County and travel outside the County was a much smaller number than those people that work in the County and have to travel some distance in. Bob Barrett: It takes about 15 minutes from this property to get to the parking on Eubanks Road. Commissioner Carey: You mentioned you were going to make some of these houses available to EmPOWERment. What does that mean? Bob Barrett: EmPOWERment has people that are trying to get into particular housing. We're working with them to find those individuals that are part of the EmPOWERment program that would consider this particular location for housing. Renee Price: With the increase in pressure for water if there is a problem from the right-of- way to the house, would that mean an expense for the homeowner? Would the homeowner have to pay for that? Geof Gledhill: I don't know. John Harris: I'd like to answer that, because I deal with this all the time. Yes, from the right-of- way to the house is the homeowner's responsibility. These service lines are the copper pipe, usually rated up to 150-200 pounds per square inch, and should not cause a break. There is a three-inch line being fed from two directions and that will increase consistency and the pressure a little bit, but not enough to break the water line. Chair Jacobs: I think that the Commissioners are keenly aware of the shortage of affordable housing and people are certainly great advocates of affordable housing. But I also would point out that we try and disaggregate the numbers because the average price of the housing in Orange County includes the housing in Chapel Hill. If you took a millionaire and a County Commissioner and average their salaries, it would make $500,007 per year. That's a little bit misleading. In the rural parts of Orange County, it may still be expensive, but it's not approaching that average. Probably a mean number would be more accurate. We actually have numbers in housing reports that that disaggregate the numbers. Of course, a major reason we don't have more low-cost housing is developers can sell high-cost housing, so they don't need to do this. So, there are two sides to this coin and certainly you are to be commended for approaching this from the private sector. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation back no later than November 5, 2008 and to adjourn this public hearing until that time. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Robert Davis: I think that the date would conflict with us having the minutes available from the Planning Board, because they're going to get it in October. We wouldn't be able to get this to you with approved minutes at your November 5th meeting. The second meeting in November was the one we were targeting. Commissioner Carey amended the motion to have this come back to the Board of County Commissioners on November 18th and to keep the public hearing open until that date. Commissioner Foushee seconded. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Comprehensive Plan Update Phase II: Third and final Public Hearing held during the Comprehensive Plan update process. The last Public Hearing was held on May 19, 2008 to introduce and receive public comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan in its entirety. The Board of County Commissioners scheduled this additional Public Hearing on the draft Plan to provide additional time for the public to review the document and prepare comments. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Alfieri said that this is actually the second public hearing being held on the draft Comprehensive Plan. He made a PowerPoint presentation. Presentation Overview • Purpose and Scope of Draft Plan • Process and Timetable • Roles/Who has been involved • Consultant's general tasks • Opportunities for citizen access and input • Notification • Availability of Draft Plan • Overview of Draft Plan • County Administration's recommendation Comprehensive Plan Purposes, Scope, and Process Purpose: - Framework for long-range decision making - Guide development and the preservation of resources - Sets goals/objectives to guide policy decisions - Serves as statutory basis for land use regulations Scope: - Planning period, 20+ years - Planning for Orange County's planning jurisdiction - Covers 8 major areas, known as Elements - Based on BOCC Guiding Principles - Not to include implementation actions such as new regulations or changes to existing Update Process and Timetable Phase I (Oct. '06-Sept. '07): - Goals (38 in total) - County Profile (Data) Element - Public Hearing (Aug. 27th) Phase II (Oct. '07-Oct. '08): - Development of Comprehensive Plan o Text for remaining 7 elements o Objectives o Public Hearing (May 19th) o Public Hearing (Aug. 25th) 0 BOCC Guiding Principles 1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services 2. Encouraging Sustainable Growth and Development 3. Encouraging Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Consumption and the Use of Non- Polluting Renewable Energy Resources While Promoting Both Air Quality Protection and the Development of an Effective Transportation System. 4. Natural and Resource Preservation 5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Patterns 6. Water Resource Preservation 7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity 8. Preservation of Community Character Roles in General - BOCC —Set stage; provide direction to advisory boards and staff; hear and consider public comments; adopt plan - Advisory Boards— Direction to staff and consultants; provide input and feedback - Consultants—meeting facilitation; partner with staff and advisory boards to complete draft plan - County Staff—partner with consultants; support boards - Public—attend meetings and hearings; provide input and feedback Clarion's General Tasks Roger Waldon, Principle, Clarion Associates Assistance During Phase II 1. Data and information collection 2. Meetings with Advisory Boards and staff 3. Advisory Board, staff and public input 4. Prepared 1St draft of Comprehensive Plan 5. Advisory Board and staff comments on draft 6. Developed a 2nd draft for public hearing Opportunities for Citizen Knowledge, Access and Input Meetings: - Countywide Meetings (4) - Open Houses (2) - Public Hearings (3) - Meetings of 8 Element Lead Advisory Boards Accessing Information: - Public meetings, Internet, County libraries, and Planning Department Notification Orange County Comprehensive Plan: - Ads run in News of Orange, Northern Orange Extra, and Chapel Hill Herald - Press releases - Posted bulletins at post offices, stores, community centers, libraries, and other government buildings - Direct mail to churches and civic groups - Comprehensive Plan Update Website and County homepage "Headlines" - Upon request, direct notice to individuals via US Postal Service and e-mail - Online community calendars: "Around Town's Community Calendar" and "Chapel Hill Daybook" - Brochures - Booth at Hog Day State Requirements: - One public hearing notified through two published newspaper ads Availability of Draft Plan Available since May gth - Online at: www.co.orange.nc.us/planninq/compre cpupdate.asp - Public libraries: Carrboro, Cedar Grove, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough - Planning and Inspections Department Comprehensive Plan Chapters 1. Plan Overview 2. BOCC Planning Principles 3. Economic Development Element 4. Housing Element 5. Land Use Element 6. Natural and Cultural Systems Element 7. Parks and Recreation Element 8. Services and Facilities Element 9. Transportation Element Appendices Common Components of Elements - Summary and overview - Purpose of Plan Element - Historic/current data and evaluation of trends - Needs - Goals and Objectives - Linkages to other Elements - Key documents - Intergovernmental coordination General Comments on Draft Plan - Reflects no major changes to existing/current policy directions - Does not include specific implementation recommendations; work on those to start after Plan adoption - Draft plan designed to: o Establish a common data base; o Pull together ideas and information previously scattered; o Set the stage for subsequent community discussions about implementation strategies After Adoption, What's Next? Tonight's Public Hearing — Phase II Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives Identified Next Phases to Be Determined Through a Process: Next Phases: IMPLEMENTATION - Advisory boards/staff review Goals & Objectives, collaborate, and recommend annual work plans to BOCC - BOCC/County Manager review and authorize annual work plans - Study and identification of implementation actions - New or changes to regulations with subsequent public hearings and community input Administration's Recommendation County Administration Recommends: 1) Closing the May 19, 2008 Public Hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan; 2) Holding and closing tonight's Hearing; and 3) Referring the draft Plan to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC October 7, 2008. Brian Ferrell took Geof Gledhill's place at this time. Tom Altieri added a few things to the public record for this meeting. He submitted comments from Commissioner Gordon, which are included near the end of these minutes. He also submitted some comments on behalf of some citizens that were received since the packets were put together(comments were from Donnie Walker, John Hubert, Karen Pierce, Nancy Wilberman, Bob Reids, Terry Dixon, Terry McGuire, and Tom Magnuson). Comments are incorporated by reference. Chair Jacobs thanked the Planning Board for all of the work dedicated to this effort over several years. He also thanked the Planning staff and Mr. Waldon and his associates. He reiterated that the next phase is the implementation phase, which is the phase where specific neighborhoods and parcels are discussed. This process will take a year or more and will involve public hearings and submission of information and comments from the public. All documents received will be forwarded to the Planning Board and to the Board of County Commissioners, so nothing will be filtered. He said that all of the advisory boards were asked to make comments and it was decided that the Planning Board would be the ultimate arbiter among the advisory boards of what would go into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and it would make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. He said that there are some documents from an advisory board that did not meet its deadlines. Chair Jacobs stated that in June, the Commissioners specifically said that they did not want to entertain a complete rewrite of a section of the Comprehensive Plan, but the advisory board went ahead and did a complete rewrite. The Board of County Commissioners is interested in how the Planning Board would like to proceed with this. Also, the Town of Chapel Hill finally gave a response and would like to comment on the Land Use Plan Update, but cannot do it until September. If the Planning Board does not object, he would like to give the Town of Chapel Hill until the second meeting where this is being considered, which is September 10tH PUBLIC COMMENT: Chris Moran is a member of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition which represents various diverse partners. He said that he has learned a lot about this process and he is encouraged to make some comments. He said that his comments were mostly with regard to the housing, services, and facilities elements. He said that he was surprised that there have been no major changes reflected in the plan. He is not convinced that everyone understands these concepts or the particulars of what is being recommended. This will be the guiding document for the next 20 years, so he would like to reemphasize these points. He feels very strongly that in the services and facilities portion, there is a strong emphasis on aging, public health, and mental health. He would like to recommend that something about poverty be included as a major focus for Orange County. He said that unless living wages are improved, and unless more blue-collar jobs are provided, he does not think that very much can change. He would also like to see more of an emphasis on sustainable food resources and how more food can be grown in Orange County so that it can be shared with hungry persons and various feeding programs. County housing options should include shelters and transitional housing programs, because more units are necessary for people to work on their goals before they transition back into the community. There is a great need to restore more existing units of housing in the County so that people from homeless shelters can transition. He said that there also needs to be quality mobile home parks for those that choose to live in them. He suggested having incentives to landlords to help energize units so that the existing housing stock is improved. He said that the bottom line is that, as the County plans for new developments in Orange County, there needs to be adequate services and caregivers provided for all of the recipients of those developments in case things happen, as they will. Allen Rosen made the following comments: Quarterly Public Hearing, August 25, 2008 Orange County Board of Commissioners & Planning Board AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Plan Update Phase II Public Comment on behalf of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition Good evening. My name is Allan Rosen and I am speaking on behalf of The Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition, which is made up of nine organizations representing diverse interests in Orange County. Just this month we marked our first anniversary. The Coalition formed to pursue two goals. First, we've made every effort to inform the Planning Board of our shared priorities for environmental health, social equity, and economic vitality that we want to see incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. You will find that the coalition has presented 21 pages of written comment' and coalition members have provided an additional 61 pages2. The Coalition will wait until the Planning Board makes its recommendations available to the public before making further comments on the plan. Since those recommendations are expected to be ready on September 22, I would like to highlight one concern: According to the timetable, the public will only have fifteen days to review the planning board's recommendations and, in turn, prepare any remarks they feel are warranted before the commissioners scheduled vote on October 7. Hence, the Coalition recommends that the commissioner's vote takes place no sooner than 30 days after the Planning Board's recommendations are available for public review. However, it is to our second purpose—educating the public about, and encouraging their participation in, the comprehensive plan update process --that prompts our remarks tonight. In furtherance of this goal we maintain a website, advocated for the January Public Input Session, written op-eds and letters to editors, set up displays at community events, presented at civic meetings, and posted on local blogs. Hopefully, these actions increased the level community participation. Unfortunately we recently learned that the manner in which public comments are being reviewed is exclusionary and therefore contrary to the purpose of community participation. As noted in the coalition's memo found on page 187 of the Agenda Item Abstract, 'See pp.22-23,27-30,and 36-49 of the May 19 Public Hearing Agenda Item Abstract and p. 187 of the August 25 abstract. 2 See pp.32-35 of the May 19 abstract and pp. 89,91-95,119-132. 136, 142-165,and 167-178 of the August 25 abstract. "... Because time is of the essence, we commend staff for preparing a Table of Proposed Revisions (TPR), which includes public comments. This table will be very helpful in facilitating the Planning Board's review in a timely manner. However, not all the public comments are being included in the TPR. Instead only those comments deemed as "not too controversial or are not significant changes to the meaning of the objective" are included. (i.e. comments deemed "controversial"are being excluded!) In contrast, the Coalition strongly recommends that all public comments received to date— and for as long as the Public Hearing is open — be included in the TPR. The Planning Board should solely be responsible for selecting which public comments to incorporate into their recommendations rather than for Planning Department personnel to filter the comments that will be considered. Such filtering could all too easily be mistaken as staff censorship and/or usurpation of the Planning Board's role." Personally, I do not think the filtering is intentionally censorious, but rather the result of the work load and time constraints placed on the Planning Board and Staff. Whereas planning department staff unsuccessfully attempted—over a period of four years --to update only the rural watershed, residentially-zoned sections of the county's Land Use element, the Planning Board has the responsibility (supported by staff) to spearhead a complete update of the entire eight-element Comprehensive Plan in less than two years, while also conducting its regular business, reviewing the Buckhorn Village proposal and integrating eight county advisory boards into the plan update process. In this context, it's not unexpected that a time-saving mechanism such as comment filtering was utilized. Still, even if the filtering was done with the best of intentions, the effect is the same—some public comments both from the Coalition and all other concerned parties who took the time to engage in the process are not getting the full attention of the Planning Board during their meetings. Rather, as this process comes to a close some public comments, whether controversial and/or progressive and forward-thinking, will only be taken up by the Planning Board if an individual board member takes it upon his/herself to bring specific items to the board's attention and advocate for changes to the Plan. Therefore the Coalition strongly encourages the County Commissioners to make sure that 1. all public comments are treated equally in the review process, 2. the Planning Board has sufficient time to accommodate an equitable review process, and 3. the commissioners vote on the Comprehensive Plan takes place no sooner than 30 days after the Planning Board's written recommendations are made available to the public. Any adverse consequences of extending the process to accommodate equitable public participation is small compared to the benefits, especially for a document intended to have such long-lasting influence. Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition Member Organizations Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, Community Action Network, EmPOWERment, Inc., Foundation for a Sustainable Community, The Greater Chapel Hill Association of REALTORS, Homebuilders' Association of Durham, Orange and Chatham Counties, Inter-Faith Council on Social Service, The Village Project, Walkable Hillsborough Bonnie Hauser made the following comments: Statement to the Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 25, 2008 From Concerned Citizens Against the Use of Eminent Domain My name is Bonnie Hauser. I am a property owner and resident of Orange County. Tonight I am speaking on behalf of Concerned Citizens against the abuse of eminent domain. We are pleased to see this public forum and transparent act of government to agree on a plan to take Orange County into the future. We are especially pleased that the plan addresses economic, environment and other land use considerations and is intended for the greater good. And of course, we are pleased that the plan has been made available for public debate. We see no mention in the plan of an airport in Orange County and how that might serve the greater good. In fact, the airport conflicts with multiple elements of the plan including land use, economic development, provision of public facilities and services, and preservation of water resources, rural land and natural areas. In the plan, we see no anticipated obligation of Orange County to serve AHEC or UNC. We see no provision in our growing tax liability to pay for such a project or take the needed land off our tax rolls. We are very unhappy that the NC legislature has granted UNC the authority to override the good work of our county leadership. We believe that this is an over-reaching act of government- especially since UNC and the proposed airport authority are not elected by the people and cannot be held accountable to serve the greater good. We are more disturbed since this suspicious act of the legislature bypasses the recommendations of experts hired by UNC who suggest that AHEC is best served by using a private terminal at Raleigh Durham Airport. We ask why bother with a comprehensive plan, zoning or other protections under the law. Today, the citizens of Orange County sit in fear that—at the whim of UNC or the North Carolina Legislature—their land will be condemned or they will have an airport or some other fabrication as a neighbor. As part of this planning effort, we ask the commissioners and the planning board to stand up for the property rights of our community and to protect the greater good. Steve Richardson made the following comments: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, good evening. I'm Steve Richardson. I've been an Orange County property owner for twenty years. I once purchased a 1.3 acre sliver of land in Southern Orange County to add to my property which somehow triggered a major subdivision review and astoundingly led a member of the planning board to find fault with even the name I chose for the tiny subdivision. So I know some frontline realities of land use in Orange County, for which the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is supposed to provide future Commissioners a template. I also speak for my friend Lynette Hartsell, an attorney who is out of state tonight. We both serve on the Board of our new civic association, Friends of Lake Orange. But tonight, and in written comments two weeks ago, we speak as much for ourselves as for anyone else — actually, for everyone else because the Plan affects everyone in the County, not just us. Until a month ago, none of my friends and neighbors had heard of the 2030 Plan, or you'd have seen us all here long ago. While the draft of the Comprehensive Plan may appear to meet legal requirements for public discussion, only a handful of those who know of the Plan know what's in it, all 313 pages. The draft boldly uses the ominous term "police powers" for its enforcement. How many know there is no requirement under state law that Orange or any other North Carolina County even have such a Plan? Despite many worthy things and sentiments sprinkled through the current draft, it has major gaps that make it fatally flawed. The Plan asserts control for use of land, public and private. But nowhere does the Plan (or, as far as I can tell, the old one it replaces) even mention "property rights." No provision for their taking, no means of recourse and compensation when the County for itself or County on behalf of the State restricts or otherwise disposes of our property rights. Dealing with property rights does add complexity to land use planning. So I understand why that planning board member years ago objected to naming my little subdivision after Thomas Jefferson, champion of property rights and limited government. Commissioners, your property deed has your name on it. My deed has my name on it. Property taxes we all pay are not rent for our use of our property, with the State or the County as landlord. This Plan draft can be fixed, but the current draft is no plan that any property owner could agree to. This Commission's makeup will change very soon. The stated intent in establishing a separate District Commissioner for Northern Orange County, was to give an effective voice to the northern part of the County. Where is our voice in this Plan? Lynette and I ask this Commission to defer any action on the Comprehensive Plan to the new County Commission taking office in December. We also ask you simultaneously set up an effective process to meaningfully publicize the Plan. Gather input during coming weeks and months to revise it to acknowledge and reflect the rights and recourse of the people whose names actually are written on Orange County property deeds. Having a County that harmonizes policy with the rights of its citizens is the best way I know to plant seeds that flower into community consensus year after year rather than yield bumper crops of ugly and costly conflict that just won't go away. Thank you. Please let me know if there's any other way in which I can help. Thanks, Stephen G. Richardson, Ph.D. Vice President & Board Member Friends of Lake Orange Civic Association POB 101 Cedar Grove, NC 27231 www.lakeorange.org Ann Joyner is a resident of Orange County and also President of Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities. She has served as an expert consultant for land civil rights lawsuits against various government entities. She said that Cedar Grove Institute works in land use and issues of diversity and affordable housing. She made reference to the Housing Element. Regarding the affordable housing plan put forward earlier, she thinks that this is emblematic of the County's attitude for the last 20+ years. She has been intermittently addressing the County Commissioners during those 20+ years. The attitude seems to be, "not my job." It was pointed out that when values are averaged, the numbers are not really representative, but the County's table in the Comprehensive Plan gives the median house value and not the average. The median value from Orange does include Chapel Hill values, which are high, but it also includes Hillsborough. She said that Orange is still the highest in the Triangle. Secondly, the remark was made that developers build expensive homes because they can sell them, implying that the County does not play a role in what gets built. As a former developer, and as a developer whose 1987 development was used by a former Planning Director of Orange County as the model for the first flexible development plan in the County, she can say that the County's subdivision regulations currently make it almost impossible to develop affordable housing subdivisions. She said that the County has a responsibility to take direct action to enable, if not create, affordable housing. She does not mean mobile homes. The current comprehensive plan, not the one being evaluated, did not mention affordable housing except for mobile homes. She said that mobile homes serve a needed purpose, they depreciate, further exacerbating the wealth gap between the haves and the have-nots. She said that, directly because of that circumstance, 11% of the County's housing is in mobile homes right now. She said that she does not see anything in the Comprehensive Plan that assures her that there is understanding of this gap. Instead, there are mansions on two-acre lots. She asked the County Commissioners to put something concrete in the Comprehensive Plan for the next 20 years that will improve the situation. Spence Dickenson acknowledged the Planning Board for all of the work that has been done. He wonders how much the County is using some of the benefits of the resources around the country such as energy efficiency resources. He made reference to eco-municipalities and that there are some resources for reducing dependence on fossil fuels, synthetic chemicals, etc. He said that he is particularly looking out for the children and the future. There are only a few places left with unlimited expanse. Robin Taylor-Hall asked when the critical watershed and the sewer plan for Efland would be addressed. Chair Jacobs said that it would be addressed in the implementation phase. Ben Lloyd made reference to the water critical areas. He said that he is very concerned with water quality. He has been on the Board of Directors of Orange-Alamance Water Systems for 37 years. He said that Orange-Alamance is noted for providing some of the purest and best water in the state. He said that the County should look at available technology that will allow reasonable growth in some of the nearly 19,000 acres of Orange County in the water quality critical area where no public water, no public sewer, or commercial and industry activity is allowed. He referred specifically to exits 160 and 161 on 1-85/1-40 in the Seven Mile Creek area. He said he has hosted three staff members from the North Carolina Department of Commerce, one being the chief environmentalist. The opinion was that Orange County had the most potential area in the State of North Carolina and any surrounding state to attract good, clean, low-water using, non-polluting economic growth. There have been three economic development districts in Orange County for about 15 years. The problem is that no one has come because they do not like the locations or the regulations. Three and a half years ago, the Board of County Commissioners made a commitment to bring 5,000 new commercial jobs and increase the commercial tax base in Orange County to $125 million by June 2010. As of today, nothing has been done. He said that if there is to be no reservoir on Seven Mile Creek, the critical designation should be removed and the one-half mile requirement should be changed to the topographical one-half mile. Due to the no-growth policy in the last 20 years, there has been 20 years of continual property tax increases. In the same 20 years, there has been a 529% increase in the property tax. He said that lifelong County residents are leaving because they can no longer afford to live in Orange County. He asked the County Commissioners what they plan to do about it. Dolly Hunter lives in Bingham Township and is a member of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Coalition. She thanked the Planning Board for the efforts of developing this plan in two years. She asked the Planning Board to make a final effort to please consider all of the recommendations made by the Coalition on transportation, housing, economic development, and land use. She asked the County Commissioners to please give the Planning Board time to thoughtfully consider all of the public comments and make this a quality document. She asked specifically that a table that was in the first draft of the Natural and Cultural System Element be reinserted. This was Table 6.7 called Groundwater Recharge Rates. This shows that the average acreage needed is 1.11 acres as a minimum lot size to recharge groundwater in Orange County. This is essential information in order to interpret the minimum lot size needed in the future land use planning implementation phase of this plan. She asked the County Commissioners to please make the Comprehensive Plan Update a document that reflects the concerns of its citizens and can easily be understood by its citizens and those making policies from it for the next 20 years. Deonna Angelillo asked about Senate Bill 1925 regarding the airport authority that will be formed. The airport will be established in Orange County. She asked how the public will know who the Board of County Commissioners has appointed to this authority. She asked about the reasonable timeframe of disclosure of who has been appointed. She asked for any advice on the general statute that outlines the criteria for the validity of an Airport Commission. Chair Jacobs said that this is a public hearing on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and he suggested that she ask the County Attorney about the last question. Regarding the first two questions, the Board makes appointments in public session. The Board of County Commissioners had nothing to do with creating the Senate bill and it was not consulted. Whatever information the Board receives, it will share with the public. Steve Yuhasz complimented the Planning staff and all of the advisory boards on compiling all of the policies that form County government decisions. He thinks that the real planning will have to take place in the implementation phase. This is where everyone will need to stay involved and stay informed. One specific item in the plan is in the Economic Development Element on page 316, lines 42-45, in particular, the statement that, "maintaining this quality of life will require enhanced revenue streams to cover the costs of new or expanded services." It goes on to say that, "higher level of services can be provided with additional economic development." He thinks that a commitment to ever-expanding levels of service provided by the County is too much of a burden to put on the County and to include in this Comprehensive Plan. He would like to see this eliminated, reworded, or somehow modified so as not to put that requirement in this Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Gordon submitted her comments electronically, as shown below: MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and Planning Board (OCPB) via Donna Baker Copies: OUTBoard, County Manager, Planning Director and Staff Subject: Comments on the Comprehensive Plan Date: August 25, 2008 Since I will not be able to attend the Public Hearing on August 25, I am submitting comments via this memorandum. I would like these comments to be made part of the record of the public hearing and to have copies of these comments made available to the BOCC and OCPB, as well as the others listed above. There are two sets of comments. The first set relates to Chapter 9, the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The main purpose of these comments is to restore the original Transportation Goal 1 and its Objectives. Any other specific comments on the comprehensive plan will come later. The second set provides brief overall comments. CHAPTER 9 -TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The OUTBoard revisions to the May 6 draft of the Comprehensive Plan strengthen the document in many ways. However, the revisions delete the first objective (in the May 6 draft) that focuses on a multi-modal approach to protecting the environment. Given below is a suggested combination of the May 6, 2008 Transportation Element draft Goals and Objectives, and the subsequent OUTBoard recommended changes given in the agenda packet for the August 25, 2008 public hearing. The major changes made by this combination restore the original May 6 goal T-1, and also clarify and strengthen that goal and associated objectives. For example, the May 6 Objective T- 1.2 is stated as two objectives (T-1.3 and T-1.4). Having separate categories for environmental impacts and community impacts is similar to the approach used by the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) when the TAC evaluates transportation facilities. Restoring the original first goal involves a few changes in the subsequent goals and objectives to take into account other changes in the Goals and Objectives made by the OUTBoard. It also involves renumbering the other goals, so that the OUTBoard Goal 1 becomes Goal 2, and so forth. The suggested changes to the Goals and Objectives cover pp. 9-29 through 9-34 of the OUTBoard document in the August 25 hearing packet. These pages are also numbered (at the top of the page) as pages 41 through 46 of the August 25 packet. I. CHANGES TO THE GOALS A. Transportation Goal 1 (starts on page 9-30, also numbered page 42 in the August 25 packet) An efficient and integrated multi-modal transportation system that protects the natural environment and community character. B. Transportation Goal 2 Integrated land use planning and transportation planning. C. Transportation Goal 3 A comprehensive network of connected transportation corridors (roads, sidewalks, rail, etc) supporting an appropriate mix of traffic. D. Transportation Goal 4 Efficient and safe traffic movement along Orange County routes and corridors E. Transportation Goal 5 A comprehensive, creative, and effective transportation planning process. II. CHANGES TO THE OBJECTIVES A. Transportation Goal 1 (starts on page 9-30, also numbered page 42 in the August 25 packet) An efficient and integrated multi-modal transportation system that protects the natural environment and community character.Objective T-1.1 Expand the use of public transit (bus and rail), walking, and biking as primary modes of travel; and increase the occupancy of automobiles through ridesharinq and other means. Objective T-1.2 Facilitate the overall development and use of a transportation system that is more energy- efficient and reduces carbon emissions. Objective 1-1.3 Develop new transportation facilities in a manner that has a positive impact or at least minimizes negative impacts on the natural environment, including air quality, water resources (wetlands, streams, water supply watersheds), biological resources, and wildlife habitat. Objective 1-1.4 Develop new transportation facilities in a manner that has a positive impact or at least minimizes negative impacts on the community, including historical or cultural assets, existing neighborhoods, schools and recreational facilties, and the overall rural character in Orange County. Objective T-1.5 Identify prime viewsheds along major transportation corridors and protect these areas for their scenic and natural resource values. B. Transportation Goal 3 which will become Goal 4 (starts on page 9-32, also numbered page 44 in the August 25 packet) Efficient and safe traffic movement along Orange County's routes and corridors. Delete Objective T-3.2 which would have become T-4.2, since it is now covered under Objective T-1.1. Change it to the following: Construct new bicycle facilities in Orange County that will make cycling for transportation purposes safer and more convenient. (This is similar to Objective 1-1.7 under Goal 1 in the May 6 document.) Change Objective T-3.4 which will become T-4.4 Reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase local production, distribution, and use of renewable, sustainable fuels. Change Objective T-3.8 which will become T-4.8 Increase safety awareness between car drivers and bicycle riders, and increase safety for pedestrians. OVERALL COMMENTS I was impressed by all the work that has gone into the comprehensive plan, and noted the length and complexity of the document. I appreciate all that has been done by our advisory boards and staff, and by the public in their comments. The public hearing agenda abstract lists as one purpose of the hearing to "receive direction from the Board of Commissioners as to subsequent steps." According to the schedule, the commissioners will be considering the plan one more time, and that is for approval at our regular meeting on October 7. It is my opinion that the commissioners will have to devote a major portion of that meeting to the plan and/or schedule an additional work session. End of Commissioner Gordon's comments. Commissioner Foushee made reference to a comment from Mr. Rosen regarding filtering comments that come in. She asked for someone to elaborate on that process. Tom Altieri said that Planning staff mutually agreed to work together to review all comments submitted by the public. This review remains a work in progress. All written comments have been provided verbatim to the Planning Board at least once in an agenda packet, and in most cases, twice. Staff and the Planning Board are working on a draft table of proposed revisions that have been prepared. Staff and Planning Board members both have the opportunity or the ability to add items to this table of proposed revisions based on the review that has taken place. Planning Board and staff have taken this review of public comments and the handling of the public comments very seriously. A significant amount of time has been scheduled by the Planning Board for the purpose of reviewing these comments at their meetings. He assured the Board that there is no censorship and all of the written comments provided have been distributed to the Planning Board. Commissioner Foushee said that she wants the public to be clear on this. Chair Jacobs said that because this comes back to the County Commissioners on October 7th does not mean the business will be concluded. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to close the public hearing from May 19, 2008; close this public hearing; and refer the draft Plan to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners October 7, 2008. Brian Ferrell suggested leaving the public hearing open for the purpose of receiving comments from the Town of Chapel Hill. Commissioner Foushee amended the motion to include leaving the public hearing open until comments are heard from the Town of Chapel Hill and any other towns in Orange County. Commissioner Carey seconded. Tom Altieri said that the public hearing is being held open specifically to receive additional comments from municipalities as opposed to further written comments submitted by the public. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion as made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn the meeting at 9:46 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board