|
Attachment 2
<br />Approved 7/1/09
<br />1 Minutes
<br />2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
<br />3 JUNE 3, 2009
<br />4 REGULAR MEETING
<br />5
<br />6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative;
<br />7 Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township At-Large; Mark Marcoplos, Bingham Township At-Large; Earl McKee, Little River Township
<br />8 Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove
<br />9 Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative
<br />10
<br />11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large; Vacant, At-Large
<br />12
<br />13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Robert Davis, Planner III;
<br />14 Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Eddie Kirk, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II;
<br />15
<br />16 OTHERS PRESENT: Kimberly Lewis; Margaret Lewis; Alvon Lewis; Lucy Fearrington; Joseph Fearrington; Noah Harris; Ola Harris;
<br />17 Kirstin Frescoln; Louis Kingsland; Vicky Hendel; Walter Whitlock; David Holdaway; Kent Wiles; Tom Holt; Andrew Nobel; Lee
<br />18 Lambert; Steve Prakken; Sheyko & Nichole Sergey; Ann Waller; Greg Forest; Jay Harris; Derek Harris; Jon, Cheryl, Katlyn &
<br />19 Kegan Edwards; Clementine Self; Johanne Gisledth
<br />20
<br />21 .*.,****.*,**,*****.,**,.****~*„**,,,*,x.*,,,~*„*,**,
<br />22
<br />23 AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Article Seven (7) Planned Development Section 7.2.8 Time Limit of
<br />24 Start of Construction of Planned Development.
<br />25 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this item heard at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly
<br />26 Public Hearing.
<br />27 Presenter: Michael Harvey
<br />28
<br />29 Michael Harvey: Good evening. The next item on your agenda is the review of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment relating to
<br />30 a proposed amendment to Article Seven, Section 7.2.8 Time Limit on Start of Construction of Planned Development modifying
<br />31 existing regulations concerning the required time limit of commencement of construction activities. This was presented at the
<br />32 May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. The impetus for this amendment was based on the recent review on a planned
<br />33 development project where there was discussion on the existing regulations governing the commencement of construction
<br />34 activities and what timelines relating to the commencement of construction activities that planned development projects were
<br />35 required to meet. In reviewing these requirements, both during the review of this project and after, staff determined that there
<br />36 are potential issues with the existing ordinance language, specifically that the existing regulatory standards don't factor in the
<br />37 permitting process and review time necessary for planned development projects that are large in scope and have to obtain
<br />38 numerous local, state and federal permits in order to legally begin construction activities. This could include but are not limited to
<br />39 necessarily Army Corp of Engineers 404 Wetland Permits, Federal and North Carolina Department of Transportation permits if
<br />40 interstate work has to be done, signalization, recalibration that may be required and the like. The existing ordinance does not
<br />41 contain any standard outlining how the decision is made as it relates to the approval or denial of an extension request and finally
<br />42 existing process are ambiguous and open to some severe interpretation. What staff has proposed to do is essentially create a
<br />43 procedure where a developer could ask for additional time to commence construction activities for an approved planned
<br />44 development project and establish a process that will not only govern how that proposal is reviewed but how it could either be
<br />45 approved or denied by the County. At the Quarterly Public Hearing, I'm on page 66 of your packet, there were six essential
<br />46 comments made on this item, which I'll review them briefly. The County Board of Commissioner members felt the proposed 48
<br />47 month extension for large projects was acceptable but that they didn't feel the proposed language was clear enough to explain
<br />48 exactly what was meant by that extension. The Board agreed that single-use projects would be allowed to continue to make use
<br />49 of the six month extension request currently detailed within the Ordinance. They wanted the definition of single-use. They
<br />50 wanted language within the proposal that would specifically spell out the total number of months you had to commence
<br />51 construction activities. They requested that language be added detailing the annual reporting submittal requirements and they
<br />52 wanted to continue to require that all extension request reviewed be approved by the County Board of County Commissioners.
<br />53 As you might recall at the Quarterly Public Hearing, we had suggested staff could provide that function and the County
<br />54 Commissioners didn't want that to occur so we put that language back in our proposal. What you are being asked to do tonight
<br />55 is begin deliberating on this petition and make a recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners. The proposed
<br />56 ordinance begins on page 67 and continues to page 70. Very briefly what I would like to do is walk you through it. On page 67,
<br />57 attachment one, single-use development would have to commence construction activities within twelve months of the permit
<br />58 being issued in order for the special use permit and the rezoning approval to still be considered valid. On page 68, we have
<br />59 included the definition of single-use development meaning a project proposing a single specific use of a given parcel of property
<br />
|