Agenda - 10-16-2012 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

19 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to 2 seek further clarity, get responses back in writing and come back at the September 18th 3 meeting, and to use that meeting to provide further direction to the applicant and Planning 4 Board regarding the Commissioners' preferences on the items that have been identified as 5 areas of concern and that are addressed in writing by the applicant and by appropriate 6 agencies; and to adjourn the public hearing until September 18th to allow staff and the applicant 7 to bring forward the written requests and information as required by this meeting. 8 9 Commissioner Yuhasz said that this process and the need to get feedback from the 10 County Commissioners points to the possibility that they may not want to limit conditional use 11 applications to the Quarterly Public Hearings. If there is going to be this kind of month-to-month 12 bringing something back, it might be more appropriate to accept conditional use applications on 13 a more frequent basis. 14 Commissioner Gordon said that she objects to that suggested change. 15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 16 17 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 18 target a November 20th decision point and to have a recommendation by the Planning Board. 19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 20 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment(s): To review 21 qovernment-initiated amendments to the text of four sections of the UDO in 22 order to adequatelv address the development of solar arravs within the 23 county• 24 25 Michael Harvey made reference to page 10 of the agenda packet. Under Section 5.1.2 26 of the Ordinance, there are references to uses that are permitted and land use development 27 standards. He read Subsection J, "electrical substations, switching and metering stations and 28 associated transmission lines, where incoming voltage does not exceed 100 kilovolts (kv). (See 29 Section 5.9.2)". He said that Section 5.9.2 is the appropriate section where this type of 30 development is located. There are three amendments to address the inconsistency. The 31 proposal is to establish an accessory use process where residential and non-residential land 32 uses can obtain a zoning compliance permit to allow for the development of a solar unit for utility 33 needs. This will be approved by staff based on guidelines. If the guidelines are exceeded, the 34 recommendation is for it to go to a Class B Special Use Permit (Board of Adjustment and 35 Planning Board). If a public utility is proposed, it will be a Class A Special Use Permit process 36 (County Commissioners in a Quarterly Public Hearing). This ordinance provides guidance on 37 permitting processes. He made reference to the yellow sheet, which was a memorandum from 38 the Commission for the Environment with comments regarding the amendments. 39 40 Commissioner Jacobs asked for more detail on the Commission for Environment's 41 concerns about the permitting process. 42 43 Michael Harvey said that one of the concerns is that solar arrays cannot be located in 44 the front area of a property. Staff is consistent with the current development practice in the 45 County. If there is a desire to modify existing limitations to allow for more flexibility of the arrays, 46 there would have to be a separate amendment.