Agenda - 04-05-2011 - 9a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I ~~ ~` rf r• ~: s ~ zi a ~d~ ... , zl .. C~~r . ~3.;~''. r l ideas were offered during the UDO review process that suggest additional attention to the procedures that are spelled out in the ordinance, to further enhance the effectiveness of the UDO. Rei_evant Comprehensive Plan Provisions • • ~ • I I I III ^.i~.i.. I.I~UI..PI.141~ hand Use-6: Aland use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. There was strong support during the process far consideration of changes that would streamline processes and enhance communication with citizens. There were also suggestions related to formatting in the UDO, and requests for clarification of certain provisions, Streamlining • Explore ways to shorten review and approval processes. • Include metricsforapproval timeforeach process. • Review telecommunication towers process. • Revisit roles and responsibilities of Planning Board vs. Board of Commissioners for approvaldeclsions. Communication • where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should add thane as required notification mechanisms. • Reconsider public notification requirements for differences between rural versus suburban locations din terms of distance for notice requirements. • Consider new ideas for public notification. Formattin Clarification • Include more cross-references, on-line search mechanisms, • Mention the Orange County /Town of Hillsborough Interlocal Agreement. • Develop more guidelines far selection of school sites. • Mention the Uvater and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement, • Incorporate references to Animal Control Ordinance, align definitions. • lnclude language to better differentiate between the different types of residential coning districts. ® Reconsidertreatingwithdrawal ofan application as a denial.