Agenda - 12-06-2012 - 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

51 A motion was made by Commissianer Brown,seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adopt the changes to the irrterlocal agreement and include the change regarding one morrth after the effective date of the agreement OTE: UNANIMOUS b. Text Amendments to Subdivision Re4ulations and Zonin4 Ordinance � Planning Director Craig Benedict made this presentation. He said that the text amendments ifiat are being addressed in the ordinance refer direcdy to an item that was on the pubtic hearing agenda on August 23, 1989 and invoive the timefiame in which decisions must be made for both subdivisions and zoning. The original item that was brought before the pubtic hearing removed alI timelines for staff, Planning Board,and the Couniy Commissioners. There were no deadtines on which decisions would have to be made. Based upon comments made at the public hearing,the staff sent notices out to the participants of the public hearing and serrt additional notices out to another 20 developers and representatives in the area and met with them in October. Of the 30 no6ces that were sent out, onfy three si�owed up for discussion about the timelines. The staff then took the information to an ordinance review committee with the Planning Board to discuss.the timelines. As the proposal came forward to the Rlanning Board,there were guidelines placed�n the decision process for the staff and the Planning Board. One of the difFerences is that if a decision is nat made within the timeframes,the item is considered approved without conditions. He said that the amendments now state that the item still moves forward, but with the original staff recommendations and the minutes of•the meetings of the Ptanning Board explaining why a decision could not be made within the time period. The item must be heard by the County Commissioners within 90 days after the Planning Board hears it The Counfiy Commissioners are allowed to table the item for a"reasonable amount of time." In addi�ion,the language for an appeal has been modified to give a 15-day period of time for an appeal. Commissioner Brown clarified that the"reasor�able amount of time"was not allowing the Board to put off ifie decision, but to ask legitimate ques6ons and actually work on making a decision. Craig Benedict pointed out that the Planning Board recommends that after the item is placed on fihe Board of County Commissione�'agenda,the decis'wn is to be rnade within 60 days. This is on the last page of the agenda abstract This is not his recommendation, but the recommendation of the Planning Board. � Commissioner Jacobs thanked the staff for giving the Board three proposals. He suggested that on the botEom of page 30 the wording should be clarified to say,`during defiberations and consideration of the application,the Board may defer consideration at any point to pursue additional analysis and review. Also,on page 27,section 4,the wording could be clarified to say,"The Pfanning .� Department shall notify the applicant of its action in writing." Commissioner Jacobs said that he does not agree with the Planning Board about havmg a 60-day deadline on fhe Board's decision. He made r�ference to the appeal of the prefiminary plan of minor subdivisions and said that the Planning Board is saying that it should come back to them and the administration is saying that it should come back to the Board of County Commissianers. He asked if there was a difference beiween tnatters of inteipretation of the subdivision regulations and policy issues related to the subdivision regulations. He does not think that the County Commiss'ioners need to be . invoNed in the appeal process unless it is a po(icy issue. � . GeofFrey Gledhill said that most of the appeals have to do with public versus private roads. Since staff is in tune with the County Commissioners on that issue, rareiy is the staff denying a private road where it is iustified under the regutations. He clarified that the Planning Board's role is as an advisory board and not a decision-making body. Commissioner.Gordon asked if something is r�eferred to the County Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendafion would it be reasonable to refer it back to the Planning Board. GeofFrey Gledhill said that it would be reasonable. On page 33,section 30,about the apptication being sent by cer�ified mail,she feels it should be left as cettified mail so there is a receipt indicaf�ing that the appiication was sent The Board agreed that the apptication should be sent by certfied mail. Craig Benedict said�at the staff has reviewed some of the State laws on advertising and fihey are suggesting, as they go through the comprehensive plan in the future, that there will be some very thorough and elaborate advefising guidelines. He would like to find other means of communication(i.e., intemet, newspaper,etc.). He said that he would move the statement back to certified mail. Commissioner Brown feels it is important th�t the ciE'¢ens are wefl served by these revisions. She would like to see something come back to the Board about public notifica6on of development She is concemed that there is not enough time for c�izens to respond fo developmerit proposals. St�e made reference to section nine and asked why the cohcept plan was eztended from one year to two years.