Agenda - 04-05-2011 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

t~ Ji' 296 added same red in there because if reads better but all of these sections are not new t~rritings; they are That additional language 297 that gill help the Planning Board and the Commissioners decide in Conditional Districts decisians, 29~ 299 Brian Cranford: I am looking at Purpose and Intent and you've got A, B, and C there. 3aa 301 Craig Benedict ~~e ha~~e z Purpose and Intent section na!h~ in Conditional Districts and we have added to Purpose and Intent, 302 The majority of these aspects, paragraphs being added are those Purpose and Intent sections. The guidelines that help you 303 mare rezoning decisians. Our intent is not to reinvent what was in the old Code but it is language That is acceptable to bring 304 forwardR 305 3 06 Brian Crawford: This goes to the comment That there Were Things thafi were deleted from the Zoning Ordinance That were 30 7 specific? Now in the new Ordinance They felt didn'tgefi enough coverage. 30~ 3 09 Craig Benedict: Yes 310 311 Alan Campbell: Even though they are in the Comprehensive Plan 312 313 Brian Crawford; Even (hough they are in the Comprehensive Plan, 314 315 Craig Benedict: This Board over time has really just dealt with those multiple zoning codes and subdivision caries and brought 316 them all together. We haven't operated as stra.ngly with that Comprehensive Plan at our side which we Will in the future, That's 317 why Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and then you move forward, I think we need to retrain ourselves and retrain the public to know 31~ that the guidance of your actions as you review developments permits specific language is in the UDO and explaining how you 319 look at it is in the Comprehensive Plan. If there is an interpreted area then you refer back to the Comprehensive Plan far same 320 of those guiding principles. That we will be using more and staff when reviewing a zoning application in the future will say it 321 meets UDO standards and it helps fulfill same of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, You'll see that linkage, 322 323 Alan Campbell Are you saying that in Phase 2 if we haven't gat back to this it should be pulled back out and made to be more 324 efficient. 325 326 Craig Benedict: Possibly, 327 ~ . 32~ Alan Campbell I hate taking a document that's nice and neat and you put so much work into ifi and sticking these things in that 329 don't need to be in there just for marketing. 330 _ 331 Samantha Caber Are you recommending Phis arjustsaying this could be putback in? 332 333 Craig Benedict: The general public kind of asked far Phis and afi this time staff thinks it's acceptable, In our comment we are not 334 saying you nave to da this but if you want to address these overarching themes, we think it's. acceptable. 335 336 Larry ~righf: First of all I Think I have two comments and one is That 1 was alarmed and distressed that the county attorney has 337 not really read through this dacumenfi. 33~ 339 Judith lNegner: You've gafithafi right, 340 341 Larry ~llr<righfi: I really am, I hate fio say this but I think I do want this on the record, vVe had a previous county attorney that I think 342 would have helped the public and helped the Board considerably through Phis process. I have not heard one comment from the 343 new county attorney and I would not be able to recognize his voice. In fact he looked bored. I am stating that because we've 344 had a lot of shedding here of frustration, I would just hope that when we go through this and we have a practicing attorney that 345 raised a very good paint here. I would really hate to go through this and then find out that we\ have to go through ifi again 346 because the attorney had not read this and (here are flaws that would make the County vulnerable legally, The second thing 347 want to ask is that in what you bring here Craig, and you brought before us, isn't That already in the UDO. Are we not just 34~ bringing in Phis language? Shannon, is this language that is original to what we have right here? 349 350 Shannon Berry: The language and the attachment is original to the Zoning Ordinance but it's in sa many places throughout 351 Article 7 and duplicated that bits of ifi may already be in the UDO but as presented to you as a whole, as far as haw it's put in the 352 Zoning Ordinance, you haven't seen it thafi way, 353 6