Agenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1' DRAFT 732 as far as having been able to really see what the changes are related to how storm water and stream buffers work together 1 733 don't feel that we've really spent time on that. 734 735 Tommy McNeill: I am comfortable with the stream buffers at this time and look forward to learning more about it in the future. 736 737 Rachel Hawkins: I am comfortable with the stream buffers as they are presented to us. I didn't come to the last meeting but 1 738 have complete confidence that Orange County will protect stream buffers. 739 740 Larry Wright: Ok, do we have a motion please. 741 742 Mark Marcoplos: I can make a motion. I'll use the exact same wording as the last one but insert stream buffers. 743 744 Larry Wright: Please don't. Pete do we have a motion, you can do one. 745 746 Mark Marcoplos: Oh, come on you can't deny my motion. 747 748 MOTION: Pete Hallenbeck made a motion that the Planning Board accepts the language on the stream buffers in the UDO as 749 they apply to phase one given the time that we have had to review all the information. Seconded by Tommy McNeill. 750 VOTE: 7 -1 (Becker opposed) 751 752 May Becker: I feel that we should have the opportunity to spend some time at least on storm water and how it relates to stream 753 buffers and link the important parts, the main parts of the document. Not necessarily the details at this point but at least have a 754 fundamental understanding of the main components of this document and I don't think we've had a chance to do that. 755 756 Larry Wright: Thank you very much and we move on to the last portion of this and the reason why I have this, this was not in the 757 minutes but I do feel that going into February 28th meeting that it would be good for the Board to give some sense, all this is just 758 reeling around and we have all these pages. I've gone through a lot of them. I would like to be able to capture a sense from 759 where the Planning Board feels about this document as a whole relative to the time that you've had to the amount that you have 760 been able to discuss the whole thing and these are all the sections and the time that is available to us. Remember the calendar 761 that we do have. We have an April 5 deadline and that was given to us by the Board, we have a Quarterly Public Hearing on the 762 28th which means we have March and Perdita has said that in order to prepare for that you need to have things in by the 11 th. 763 Right? 764 765 Perdita Holtz: We looked at the calendar and we might be able to go as late as the 15th but that really is the deadline to have the 766 Planning Board's recommendation. 767 768 Alan Campbell: I thought at our last meeting we were going to vote officially on this at this meeting, am I correct in that? 769 770 Larry Wright: Pending the February 28th meeting, we may get all together a whole other set of charges so our work is not done 771 on this. We are going to have public input and then the Commissioners have an opportunity to say we want the Planning Board 772 to do this ... and that. Pending all that and setting that aside, I would like to get some sort of handle on where we as members 773 feel about what we have done thus far with this document. Do we feel that we can support the document as a whole, do we feel 774 that it needs further study, but we have these time constraints, can we support this document with reservation, or can we flatly 775 say, we can't support it at all. As we have worked with it thus far. Note we haven't done telecommunications, signs, whatever is 776 in here. I think that we really need to give them a sense that we haven't really dealt with this whole document. 777 778 MOTION: Alan Campbell made a motion to approve the UDO with all the changes presented to the Planning Board through 779 tonight's meeting as is to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners as an official approval from the Planning Board. 780 Seconded by Tommy McNeill. 781 782 Mark Marcoplos: When we picked out these two items to further discuss, the stream buffer and the Conditional Zoning and the 783 rest of the zoning, we said that we were comfortable with the rest of it. We had that discussion that night and that's what we 784 decided. We said we understood the time constraints, that it wasn't a perfect world, if we're going to make this happen it has to 785 happen within the parameters the County Commissioners laid out to us in terms of their budget process and it was going to be a 786 train wreck if we tried to extend the process out to the summer. We actually had this discussion and we concluded that we were 787 comfortable with the state of the other portions of the UDO and we pulled these out and set a time table for that. I am little bit 788 surprised that we're even discussing other parts of it at this point. I am happy to vote right now to move it on because we've 789 already had this discussion. 790 791 May Becker: I don't think I said I was comfortable with everything else, I think I brought up some other issues and then other 792 members of the Board made a motion to say let's focus on these two issues and then that motion passed and that's how we 13