ORD-2009-029 - Amending Zoning Ordinance-Time Limit of Start Construction of Planned Development

Browse Search

Approved 7/1/09 0 Brian Crawford: They can put the whole master plan in and ready to be built but at that point, our job, as the County, is done. It is up to them to start selling. It is possible; they may not sell it for 10 or 15 years and there is really nothing we can do about it. Michael Harvey: That is one of the requirements for having the six months, not only reporting requirements but also saying you only get the extension necessary to meet your minimum permitting needs. Earl McKee: I can understand, on a basic level, why you would want a project to move forward, i.e. being approved under regulations that no longer exists, I understand that. Is there any other driving force on this? Michael Harvey: As the board knows, the County makes certain assumptions regarding the develop - ability of areas of the County and within the individual economic development districts specifically. If you start looking at the available of infrastructure, i.e. water sewer, you don't want one project that could eat up x amount of capacity. One of the reasons you want a commencement requirement is to ensure that other projects are not held up because of requirements for improvements. Ead McKee: At the public hearing, I heard a lot, on this master plan development, some of the Board of County Commissioners were mentioning long range, in year, five, and seven or nine years, did I hear something that did not exist? Michael Harvey: The ordinance amendment, as originally proposed, was apparently confusing and the Board did not understand the number of extensions that would be allowed for given projects. The goal is to grant the minimum time necessary for this permit. The goal is not to allow a project to sit dormant for 10 or 20 years because of multiple approvals. The ordnance was unclear last time. We have attempted to clarify that. Earl McKee: It's written here under master plan that with all the possible extensions, are we talking five years? Michael Harvey: Yes. Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: I can understand the Board of County Commissioner's point of view. I wonder what a developer would say. Earl McKee: From a development aspect, you don't want extensions. If it sits too long, the marketability drops. You do not want these extensions. It helps if you run into a problem with DOT or in this case, crossing the wetlands. Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: If the developer did not want one or need one, this would be helpful. Mark Marcoplos: It makes total sense, the flexibility is great, and I think it is a no brainer. The Board of County Commissioners heard it at the public hearing and they got it and made a few changes and I think we should send it on with our blessing. Judith Wegner: On page 68, under b, the date of approval of the project by the County, do we stamp 'approved' on document or something like that.? Michael Harvey: You have a special use permit that has to be recorded that states approved on x date. For Buckhom Village for example, there is a section that says as approved on x day by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Judith Wegner. And that is the case if it staff approved or Board of Adjustment or anybody.? Michael Harvey: This would only impact planned developments. Judith Wegner. What if someone asked for 18 months but they actually get it in 12, will they still get the 18? Michael Harvey: Under a single use, that is correct. Judith Wegner. On page 69 e, we put faces on that project to say that we thought it should go on a stage basis to say that the first phase would need to be done by a certain time or ft was not going to continue to be approved. That is still possible? Michael Harvey: Yes. We don't want to limit the Board's ability. We don't want the process to be utilized by a developer to usurp the .... 3