Minutes - 19850611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

0~~~2B Steve Yuhas2 asked if the Town .has any buffer requirement aloes the interstate in the Town's planning jurisdiction? waldon answered negatively. Commissioner TrTalker asked if the Town honored the County's requirements in their jurisdiction. Cochran asked that the Chapel Hill buffer requirements be provided in place of County requirements. Massif questioned whether his planning department should be makir~ the decision of the necessity of the 100' buffer. Fe indicated the Town has accepted ir± joint planni-x3 that, in those areas outside of our extra- territorial jurisdiction, we will use the County subdivision regulations of any other applicable regu].atians. He asked: are we or are we not in our review to use the 100' buffer? Be asked if subjective decisions are made to allow far this one not to rive it or the next one to have it. Is it fluid at all times? If it is fluid in the Ordinance, wha makes the decision how fluid it is. Is it made by the staff or by the policy making board? Does a developer ga in to our staff and the County staff and say that is fluid arx3 everybody agree and say we do not think you ought to have it and we will go before the Board and say you do not have to have it. Haw does it get evaluated by tr~e etaff c~i~en scanethirsq is so fluid, but yet a.t is in the Ordinance written in a fairly precise manner? Mayor Massif asked the attorney if a subjective decision may be made on the aoplication of the open space requirement within the Ordinance and who would evaluate and make the decision. Gledhill responded td'aat staff makes only a reconanendation. He further noted that there is a standard, but also a provision, zeferenced as Section 7.3, which allows that some requirements need not be met provided that the applicant satisfies the Board that the purpose behind the rE~uirement has been satisfied to an. equal or greater extent. This decision rewires a finding on the part of the Board based on the evidence presented. Mayor Massif asked when is the proper time for the applicant to propose changes to the project. Gledhill indicated there is no fixed answer to the question because, i.n practice, where an applicant proposes scenEth9.ng that varies from the requirements of the ordinance, that proposal co¢~s forward at the application stage and is presented at public heating. In practice the County has dealt with those westions at tY.e time it considers the application. Commissioner Marshall stated that the Board had previously asked that inccniplete applications not be brought before the Board for consideration, however this does not address on t2solve the ability to request a waiver of the 100' buffer under the planned development ordinance. She noted there 3s na waiver of the I00' tMiC buffer requitement. Gledhill confirmed this as well as indicated that floor area ratios and sight distance requirements may not be waived and must be satisfied for approval of the application. These issues have been dealt with by the County at the time of application and reviewed at public hearing. There have been instances recently where applications have beer, so incomplete that the Board has directed the staff to reject the applicatior_. F`on same requirements of the ordinance the Board might consider variations which could be heard at the public hearing. Council member R. D. Smith asked whether the buffer around the individual lots (not the MTC buffer) should be shown on the plans; should we be concerned about this; what does the developer plan to do and at what point