Minutes - 19990823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ommissionerJacobs asked ~Ianner Davis to dicu~s the difference in requirements between minor and major subdivisions. Planner Davis e~cplained the differences. chair cordon stated that she believed staff would make the decision about minorormajor subdivisions. chair cordon stated that a change had occurred in the -year rule and Planning Director Benedict concurred. There is not an accumulative rule. omrnissionerJacobs e~cpressed his belief that deleting many of these time limits is a good action, He asked questions of Planning Director Benedict, which were addressed. Planning Board Member harry Katz made reference to the website run by the Town of nary, North erolina, and stated thatthe nary website includes a timeline for development. Member Katz suggested grange bounty mightwantto develop and furnish similar information. Planning Board Member Robert trayhorn expressed the importance of informing the public as to the duration of time necessary to have action on an item taken by the Planning Department. Member trayhorn also wanted to stress the importance of minor subdivisions to rural grange bounty. ~~~ Audience amments: Emily Cameron distributed a prepared statement that addressed her support for staying within the timeframes. Ms. Cameron also had concerns about the actual tent of the amendments if the Board of bounty commissioners approves them. commissioner Brown asked Ms. Cameron if there was ever ~ concept plan that was denied. Ms. Cameron stated that the majority of the time, they could wank it outwith the developer. Planning Board Member Lynn Holtkamp made ~ statement about limiting the timeframes. Ms. Cameron stated the timeframe for a preliminary plan was ~ days, Upon review of the concept plan, any concerns should immediately be addressed with the developer for quick resoiu~ion, Ms. Cameron reiterated that sloe does notfeel any additional time is necessary. Vic Knight, of Miller Road, stated that he has many concerns about the elimination of timeframes. Vllhile he agreed with extending the -day appeal timelines, he believes those within grange bounty whp have rural developments represent a lame portion of the population, and would see these open-ended timefremes as problems. Mr, Knight does not went to have time limits eliminated, Paul empa, 47 Crean Riley Road, made reference to Planning Board Member Robert trayhorn's comments about keeping the process fordeveloping a minorsubdivision separate from the one far major subdivisions. Mr. empa believes it is importantto leave the deter in the ordinance. Steve Yuhasz, 7~0 t. Mary's Road, ~s a lead surveyor and e~cpressed his belief that elimination of tine limits is not a good idea and urged the Board of bounty Commissioners not to do so. He stated that if all timeframes are eliminated, then accountability at the staff level is also eliminated. Mr. Yuhasz Mated that knowing that there is an end to the process encourages people to go into the process. If the ordinance is changed, there is no appeal of anything to the I~Ianning Board or the Board of County commissioners. Mr. Yuhasz believes that to eliminate any kind of appeal process from the ordinance is a mistake. Mr. Yuhasz also stated that it would be wrong to force urban rules on a rural area, end that the only process changes between minor and major subdivisions is procedural. Mr. Yuhasz also stated that there had been no suggestion that staff meet with developers before making changes to the process, instead of making the developers perk of the changes that are proposed. Mr, Yuhasz again stated the need for an appeal mechanism to be built into the system Mark O'Neal, of Pickett Sprouse Real Estate, stated that he supporks the timelines. Mr. O'Neal stated that in Durham County, North Carolina, there is a development review board that meets once a week John Hartwell, of Lawrence Road, stated that he does not like the proposal because it is not good government in that there are safeguards built into the ordinance. If there is a need to change a time, then specifically address that change. Mr. Hartwell stated that there was a Iogic that led to the initial adoption of the -year concept plan. Mr. Hartwell stated he would like to see the abases remedied, bit not by eliminating the timelines within the ordinance.