Browse
Search
Minutes - 03-14-2000
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
2000's
>
2000
>
Minutes - 03-14-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2008 2:06:56 PM
Creation date
8/13/2008 1:46:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/14/2000
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 03-14-2000-10
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2000\Agenda - 03-14-2000
Agenda - 03-14-2000-8a
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2000\Agenda - 03-14-2000
Agenda - 03-14-2000-9a
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2000\Agenda - 03-14-2000
Agenda - 03-14-2000-9b
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2000\Agenda - 03-14-2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adopt the <br />changes to the interlocal agreement and include the change regarding one month after the effective date <br />of the agreement. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />b. Text Amendments to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance <br />Planning Director Craig Benedict made this presentation. He said that the text <br />amendments that are being addressed in the ordinance refer directly to an item that was on the public <br />hearing agenda on August 23, 1999 and involve the timeframe in which decisions must be made for both <br />subdivisions and zoning. The original item that was brought before the public hearing removed all <br />timelines for staff, Planning Board, and the County Commissioners. There were no deadlines on which <br />decisions would have to be made. Based upon comments made at the public hearing, the staff sent <br />notices out to the participants of the public hearing and sent additional notices out to another 20 <br />developers and representatives in the area and met with them in October. Of the 30 notices that were <br />sent out, only three showed up for discussion about the timelines. The staff then took the information to <br />an ordinance review committee with the Planning Board to discuss the timelines. As the proposal came <br />forward to the Planning Board, there were guidelines placed on the decision process for the staff and the <br />Planning Board. One of the differences is that if a decision is not made within the timeframes, the item is <br />considered approved without conditions. He said that the amendments now state that the item still moves <br />forward, but with the original staff recommendations and the minutes of the meetings of the Planning <br />Board explaining why a decision could not be made within the time period. The item must be heard by <br />the County Commissioners within 90 days after the Planning Board hears it. The County Commissioners <br />are allowed to table the item fora "reasonable amount of time." In addition, the language for an appeal <br />has been modified to give a 15-day period of time for an appeal. <br />Commissioner Brown clarified that the "reasonable amount of time" was not allowing the <br />Board to put off the decision, but to ask legitimate questions and actually work on making a decision. <br />Craig Benedict pointed out that the Planning Board recommends that after the item is <br />placed on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda, the decision is to be made within 60 days. This <br />is on the last page of the agenda abstract. This is not his recommendation, but the recommendation of <br />the Planning Board. <br />Commissioner Jacobs thanked the staff for giving the Board three proposals. He <br />suggested that on the bottom of page 30 the wording should be clarified to say, "during deliberations and <br />consideration of the application, the Board may defer consideration at any point to pursue additional <br />analysis and review." Also, on page 27, section 4, the wording could be clarified to say, "The Planning <br />Department shall notify the applicant of its action in writing." <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that he does not agree with the Planning Board about having <br />a 60-day deadline on the Board's decision. He made reference to the appeal of the preliminary plan of <br />minor subdivisions and said that the Planning Board is saying that it should come back to them and the <br />administration is saying that it should come back to the Board of County Commissioners. He asked if <br />there was a difference between matters of interpretation of the subdivision regulations and policy issues <br />related to the subdivision regulations. He does not think that the County Commissioners need to be <br />involved in the appeal process unless it is a policy issue. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill said that most of the appeals have to do with public versus private <br />roads. Since staff is in tune with the County Commissioners on that issue, rarely is the staff denying a <br />private road where it is justified under the regulations. Ne clarified that the Planning Board's role is as an <br />advisory board and not adecision-making body. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked if something is referred to the County Commissioners <br />without a Planning Board recommendation would it be reasonable to refer it back to the Planning Board. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill said that it would be reasonable. On page 33, section 30, about the application being <br />sent by certified mail, she feels it should be left as certified mail so there is a receipt indicating that the <br />application was sent. The Board agreed that the application should be sent by certified mail. <br />Craig Benedict said that the staff has reviewed some of the State laws on advertising and <br />they are suggesting, as they go through the comprehensive plan in the future, that there will be some very <br />thorough and elaborate advertising guidelines. He would like to find other means of communication (i.e., <br />Internet, newspaper, etc.). He said that he would move the statement back to certified mail. <br />Commissioner Brown feels it is important that the citizens are well served by these <br />revisions. She would like to see something come back to the Board about public notification of <br />development. She is concerned that there is not enough time for citizens to respond to development <br />proposals. She made reference to section nine and asked why the concept plan was extended from one <br />year to two years. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.