Minutes 08-27-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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