Orange County NC Website
2. Conduct the continued public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board <br /> comments on the subject of the proposed Unified Development Ordinance. <br /> 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board (along with any BOCC directives) with a request <br /> that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for <br /> the April 5, 2011 BOCC regular meeting. <br /> 4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 5, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's <br /> recommendation and any submitted written comments. <br /> For item C-3, Master Telecommunications Plan Map, the wording for the action to be <br /> considered by the County Commissioners should be changed as shown: <br /> 1. Receive the proposal for the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) map contained in <br /> this agenda abstract. <br /> 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public comments on the subject of the proposed <br /> MTP map. <br /> 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned <br /> to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 19, 2011 BOCC regular <br /> meeting. <br /> 4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 19, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board <br /> recommendations and any submitted written comments. <br /> Commissioner Gordon moved the language as stated above, which was seconded <br /> by Commissioner Hemminger. <br /> Brian Crawford said that this is a matter for the Board of County Commissioners to <br /> discuss after public comments. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said that it is important that the public know that this is the <br /> established process. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that he spoke with one of the staff before the meeting and he <br /> asked staff to explain the difference in the staff's proposal regarding referral of the UDO and <br /> what Commissioner Gordon has proposed. <br /> Planning Director Craig Benedict said that on item C-1, what Commissioner Gordon <br /> proposed is consistent with the staff recommendation with one difference. The difference is <br /> when the Planning Board looked at the November 2010 draft and all of the comments made <br /> since then, the motion made in February was to accept the November draft and all of the <br /> comments made thereafter as approved by the Planning Board, and to have that as a baseline <br /> of the approval. The Planning Board wants to focus on any new information coming in from the <br /> public and any directives from the County Commissioners. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said that her motion includes more scope and it means that all <br /> public comments can be accepted without anything being precluded. <br /> Craig Benedict said that on December 14th, the County Commissioners approved a new <br /> process for the UDO adoption. This process approved outlined how information would be <br /> forthcoming up to the continued public hearing. This approved document by the County <br /> Commissioners said that all local governments should have all comments back by February 2na <br /> On February 2nd, when the Planning Board deliberated, it thought that it had the full breadth of <br /> knowledge. He said that this is consistent with the County Commissioners' outline of <br /> information. <br /> Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board has thoroughly vetted the comments and <br /> made recommendations. He said that they would like to take in new comments tonight and <br /> deliberate on those rather than revisiting the previous comments. <br />