Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Attachment F <br />1 Excerpt From Approved 03/04/09 Planning Board Minutes 14 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 MINUTES <br />S ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD <br />6 MARCH 4, 2009 <br />7 REGULAR MEETING <br />8 <br />9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawiord, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Vice-Chair); Mary <br />10 Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheeks Township Representative; Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large; Nathan Chambers, Cheeks <br />11 Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative; <br />12 Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large <br />13 <br />14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Forrest Knight, Little River Representative; Mark Marcoplos; Bingham Township At-Large <br />1S <br />16 STAFF PRESENT: Crag Benedict, Planning Director, Robert Davis, Planner III; Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer, <br />17 Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Shannon Berry, Spedal Project Planner, Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Tom Altieri, <br />18 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II <br />19 <br />2O OTHERS PRESENT: <br />21 <br />23 <br />24 AGENDA ITEM 10: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS <br />2S To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this item heard at the February 23, 2009 <br />26 Quarterly Public Hearing <br />27 Presenter: Shannon Berry, Planner II <br />28 <br />29 (Staff handed out a fable with fhe heading "Proposed Nofiflcafion Requirements-Presented of QPH-Revised' <br />30 <br />31 Shannon Berry: Reviewed Abstract. <br />32 <br />33 PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC regarding proposed amendments to Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to <br />'34 darity the language and clearly articulate the procedures for amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. <br />3S <br />36 BACKGROUND: <br />37 The County adopted the Comprehensive Plan update the latter part of 2008. Following the plan adoption, implementation <br />38 begins, which may include amendments to the Land Use Plan (map and text). <br />39 At this time, the processes and requirements for amending the Comprehensive Plan are outlined in the adopted Zoning <br />40 Ordinance. While the procedures have been in place for a sign cant period of time, the current language is vague, leaving the <br />41 processes open for interpretation. Historically, there have been only limited amendments to the previously adopted plan. <br />42 However, prior to antidpated various amendments to the Land Use Plan to implement the recommendations contained in small <br />43 area plans, it is beneficial to more clearly define the procedures for these amendments, ensuring transparency and public input <br />44 durir~ the processes. The State does not have minimum requirements for comprehensive plan amendments. <br />4S Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance is included in its entirety in Attachment 1 with the proposed amendments in "Track Changes" <br />46 format for reference and context; however, only Secctions 2.2.14.3 through 2.2.14.9 are proposed for amendments and were <br />47 advertised for public hearing. Proposed amendments to other sections of the Article would have to be brought forward as a <br />48 separate action at a later date. <br />49 The proposed amendments to Article 2, Sections 2.2.14.3 through 2.2.14.9 of the Zoning Ordinance clearly define the spedfic <br />SO procedures and notification requirements for amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, the new language <br />S 1 provides clear and concise instructions for the application for and processing of Comprehensive Plan amendments, not currently <br />S2 included in the ordinance. <br />53 <br />S4 FEBRUARY 23, 2009 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING <br />5 S This item was heard at the February 23, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. While there were no comments made by the public, <br />S6 members of the BOCC and Planning Board provided comments on the proposed amendments. Commissioners expressed their <br />S7 desire to have County initiated Comprehensive Plan amendments be processed in the same manner as non-County initiated <br />S 8 amendments. In addition, some stated their preference that Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings of the same <br />1 <br />