Minutes 11-22-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner Gordon said that the staff said that Conditional Use Districts do conform to the Planned Development process and she gave the citation 3.7.3 (b)(2). She said that what this actually says is, "shall conform to the applicable development regulations for the corresponding general use district." She wants to know if this means the same thing as what is stated for Planned Developments in Section 7.2.5 of the current ordinance, which says, "within the Planned Development District, only those uses authorized by Article 4, as permitted in the zoning district with which the PD corresponds shall be permitted and all other requirements of the corresponding district shall be met." She said that"all other requirements"sounds like standards, not uses. She wants to know if there are differences in what uses are allowed. Perdita Holtz said that`regulations" can include "uses" because the permitted use tables technically are regulations. She said that she could add the word to Section 3.7.3 to make it clear that it does mean "uses" as well. Commissioner Gordon said that this clarification about uses should also be included in the section that is right before the permitted use table. That section on conditional uses states that any use on the Table of Permitted Uses is allowed except uses specifically excluded from consideration. Commissioner Jacobs said that since staff has referred to what was discussed at the dinner meeting as far as the schedule and since some people may be here to ask for more time, he suggested that one of the Chairs outline what was suggested about more time for people to review and comment on the document. Chair Foushee said that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board had a dinner meeting earlier and the Planning Board had concerns about having more time to review this document. There was agreement that the timeline proposed be modified to give the Planning Board, the Towns, and the public more time to review this information or to receive a presentation from the planning staff without taking an excessive amount of time in getting back to the Board of County Commissioners. Brian Crawford said that at the next Planning Board meeting, they will review the comments raised tonight and will propose a new timeline in which to address further comments and to give the public more time to express their concerns, etc. This proposed timeline would be back to the Board of County Commissioners by its last meeting on December 14th Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners do not want to rush this process, but they do want to do it as soon as possible so that it does not conflict with the budget negotiations. PUBLIC COMMENT Kathleen Ferguson works with Quintiles in contracting and she is also Chair of the Orange County Economic Development Commission (EDC). She said that earlier this year, the EDC made a recommendation that Orange County complete all phases of the UDO within a timeframe that establishes confidence with investors and business owners. This is in the context of commercial development. Phase II has an end result of Orange County being comparable with the outside areas. She said that$1.9 billion of investment occurred in this region at the height of the great recession. In 2009, Orange County received nothing. Part of it is that Orange County needs to have a competitive permitting process that is streamlined and reduces cost and time that is 90 days or less, preferably 60 days or less. She also represents the 48% of Orange County residents who commute outside the County to work. She said that there are no opportunities within the County in the private sector for jobs. She would hate to see Orange County send a message that citizens must leave the County for work. She said that having a UDO that is user-friendly for business investors will help achieve economic development. She urged the Planning Board and the County Commissioners to look at what