Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
15 <br />59 property be heard separately, at different publ'~c hearings, allowing the public time to fully comprehend the two processes and <br />60 proceedings. The BOCC voted to refer this ftem to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation to be returned to the <br />61 County Board of Commissioners no later than April 21, 2009. <br />62 - BOCC suggestions that coukf not be incorporated with this amendment process, due to legal notice limitations will be held for <br />63 future consideration. <br />64 Inconsideration of the comments made at the Quarterly Public Hearing, staff has modified the proposed amendments to Article <br />65 2, Sections 2.2.14.3 through 2.2.14.9. The new revisions are shown is underline /strike-through format in Attachment 1, with <br />66 new additions shown in blue and new deletions shown in green. <br />67 Staff's rationale for some of the original and post Quarterly Public Hearing amendments is noted in Attachment 3. <br />68 <br />69 FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts associated with adopting the proposed amendments. Staff time and the <br />70 legal advertisements have been accounted for in the departmental budget. Depending on the outcome of clarifications, future <br />71 costs for notifications could change. Notifications, as proposed, incude newspaper legal advertisements at least twice prior to <br />72 the public hearing, as well as mailings, and posting affected properties. As illustrated by the example shown in Attachment 3, the <br />73 proposed amendments could have a significant impact on the budget. Processing alarge-scale Comprehensive Plan <br />74 amendment could have upwards of $6,000 in costs for notifications for one project. By processing Zoning amendments at the <br />75 same public hearing, another $6,000 outlay could be avoided. Additionally, annual work plans could include 5 or more large- <br />76 scale projects per year. <br />77 <br />78 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Zoning Officer recommends the Planning Board review the proposed amendments to Article 2 of <br />79 the Zoning Ordinance and make a recommendation back to the BOCC in time for the agenda deadlines set for the April 21, 2009 <br />80 BOCC meeting. <br />81 <br />82 Larry Wright: How is the °affected property owners° defined? Tuscany Ridge comes to mind. It was brought to the planning <br />83 board and planning board asked staff if the~people were notified and they said yes. It was approved by the planning board and <br />84 went to the Board of County Commissioners and the residents did not know about it. Signs were brought before the planning <br />85 board and there was a lot of discussion about a prominent sign for people to see. From what I understand, 500 feet was <br />86 something they wanted defined so people would be notified that were adjacent to that property. And the ten days, if someone is <br />87 away for a week on vacation, they have two days to do something. Regarding Tuscany Ridge, that planning board spent a lot of <br />88 time trying to work on the resident's behalf so a Tuscany Ridge would not happen again. <br />89 <br />90 Craig Benedict: Tuscany Ridge is a subdivision approved four or five years ago. The process for notification is within our <br />91 subdivision ordinance that requires neighborhood information meeting and a 500 foot distance beyond the boundary of the area <br />92 being subdivide. That will stay intact separate than this. Any subdivision that comes forward, I know the planning board <br />93 deliberated whether a 1,000 foot requirement would be better than a 500 foot requirement. They have pne-approved the sign <br />94 that goes into the field on what ft looks like. , <br />95 <br />96 Lany Wright: Are we entertaining Section 2.2.14.6? <br />97 <br />98 Perdita Holtz: Yes. <br />99 <br />100 Larry Wright: In the second paragraph, ft defines how many meetings (three) that planning board has to deal with an application. <br />101 Going back to Buckhom Vllage, the applicant was able to change their application throughout the whole process. At the last <br />102 meeting, that applicant was able to change the application throughout. Staff was making presentations and the board did not <br />103 have a chance to discuss it over half the meetings. The board had to ask and makg a mofion that they wanted to have control of <br />104 the meeting and have ft board directed. A big project like Buckhorn will come to this board. Does the board want to be a rubber <br />105 stamp? I believe that after three months, we had to send it bade to the Board of County Commissioners. because there was not <br />106 ample information to us. We need to think about what is in here. If we are going to be restricted as a planning board, then why <br />107 an applicant can be modifying that application up to the last meeting that is our deadline and present us with 110 changes and <br />108 look at them one by one and vote on them. I think staff has an obligation. Mr. Benedict talked about a problem with the process. <br />109 I think this only makes the problem worse. Staff should have an obligation to the planning board, the applicant shouk present <br />110 their application and if we are given a deadline then the application should come to the board and that should be sufficient to <br />111 carry Through for board decision and not have it modified over and over. <br />112 <br />113 Brian Crawford: Larry, are you saying that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan will be as involved as the process of <br />114 Buckhom or a similar subdivision? <br />115 <br />2 <br />