HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE GW Plan & UDO languageI assume the red is the proposed change? If so, here are my questions and thoughts:
1. 2.1.1 only says that developers of subdivisions, minor subs, and nonresidential sites. Are there any other types of development that would need to comply with CTP? If so, you
need the additional language
2. Is the Bike, Ped, & Greenway plan a part of the CTP or is it a standalone plan? 2.1.1 says that developers must comply with CTP. The red language says to comply with CTP or
any other Plan. You need the additional language of “or any other Plan” if the Boke, Ped, and Greenway is not a part of the CTP or in case another type of plan is adopted in the future.
3. Does CTP itself address property that is “adjacent to a corridor that is included in the CTP” and if so that it must comply with the CTP? If it doesn’t, 2.1.1 wouldn’t require
someone adjacent to the corridor in the CTP to comply with the CTP.
If my comments don’t make sense or if I’ve misunderstood anything, just let me know.
Thanks,
Chris
From: Jay Sikes <jsikes@harnett.org>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 10:42 AM
To: Christopher Appel <cappel@harnett.org>; Carl Davis <cdavis@harnett.org>; Landon Chandler <lchandler@harnett.org>; Mark Locklear <mlocklear@harnett.org>
Subject: GW Plan & UDO language??
Good morning all!
Do y’all think this existing UDO language is adequate to enforce the new Bike, Ped, & Greenway Plan requirements or should we amend to specifically ref this plan?
Thank you,
Jay Sikes, CFM
Assistant Development Services Director/ Manager of Planning Services
Harnett County Development Services
108 E. Front St
PO Box 65
Lillington, NC 27546
910-893-7525, x4
910-814-6418
910-814-6459 (fax)
www.harnett.org/planning <http://www.harnett.org/planning>