Browse
Search
ORD-2000-020 Text Amendments to Subdivision Requlations and Zoning Ordinance
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2000
>
ORD-2000-020 Text Amendments to Subdivision Requlations and Zoning Ordinance
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2013 10:09:37 AM
Creation date
12/17/2012 3:49:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/14/2000
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
9b
Document Relationships
Agenda - 03-14-2000-9b
(Linked To)
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.
/
48
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
i1 <br /> Board of Adjustment meetings that they do not know about. Davis said that this meant the next time the Board of <br /> Adjustment is supposed to meet,not when they actually do meet. Davis said the recommendation would be required <br /> to go the Commissioners within two meetings,which is roughly 60 days. The item is to be heard by the Board of <br /> County Commissioners within 90 days,and then there are no time limits for approval or denial by the BOCC. This <br /> recommendation is going to the BOCC. The Commissioners can put parameters around their time periods. <br /> Benedict asked Davis if he had researched other jurisdictions to find out their time limits on subdivisions. Davis <br /> responded that there are no time limitations on subdivisions in Raleigh. In High Point,if a text amendment is not <br /> heard, it is denied. There are two meeting time limits in Forsyth County. <br /> Gooding-Ray asked for an explanation for the changes in procedures. <br /> Benedict said there are a variety of code provisions for when development proposals have to be acted upon. In the <br /> current ordinance,there is a provision that says if the Planning Board does not act on something within their time <br /> limit,there is an approval without any conditions. The Commissioners feel uncomfortable with a rush to judgement <br /> on deciding on development applications. In the goal-setting sessions,the Commissioners asked the Planning staff <br /> to look at the time limits to see if there could be more time for a decision. <br /> Strayhorn said that he is pleasantly surprised to see this proposal, and he thinks it is much more acceptable. He <br /> asked if this proposal would go to the Commissioners or would there have to be another public hearing. Benedict <br /> responded that this proposal would go to the Commissioners after the Planning Board's recommendation. At the <br /> public hearing,the proposal had no time constraints. This proposal is within the parameters of the discussion at the <br /> public hearing. <br /> Srayhorn said that what was heard at the public hearing was changes in the process of th e ordinance,which were <br /> very unpopular. He feels the staff has addressed those problems. He stated that he still believes no changes are <br /> necessary. He said that it seems like this is just another set of changes that the involved staff would have to look at <br /> again. Benedict responded that any recommendations that come out of this Board tonight would be sent out to <br /> approximately 30 developers and developer agents that have participated in the public hearing process. There has <br /> been one informational meeting with the agents of surveyor firms and developer agents. <br /> Gooding-Ray asked if the meeting was deferred by the staff,does the Planning Board still have two meetings to <br /> decide. Benedict responded that the Planning Board would still have two meetings. <br /> Chair Barrows made reference to page 67,in the"Accept/Reject by"column,and said that if applicants come in and <br /> have deficiencies in what they are presenting,then the staff would look at that and tell them what else they need to <br /> do. If there were no deficiencies the applicant can come to the January 5`h meeting and be heard,regardless of what <br /> goes on in the steps down below. She asked for clarification about this. Davis responded that it had to be worded a <br /> different way. If the Planning Board decides to hear it on January 5`s,they will;if not,then it would be deferred for <br /> one month. <br /> Woods said that in this scenario the developer would have to go with the one-month deferral because the developer <br /> can not give the staff everything they ask for within the five or six days. Davis responded that the plus side of this <br /> scenario is that rather than take a chance of losing a month once they are in the process,developers will discuss the <br /> projects with staff prior to submission of an application. <br /> Chair Barrows asked if,with this scenario,someone came in for an"accept/reject"at the end of November,and the <br /> Planning staff put them off one meeting,would they be put off until February 2"d,which is a little over 60 days. She <br /> asked what the scenario is now,without the revisions. Davis responded that now it is only put off 30 days. Based <br /> on the filing,they are really only adding about two weeks extra to the submittal. <br /> Benedict said that part of the process here is that there has been a lot of disagreement between the applications that <br /> have come in and staff recommendations. Accordingly,there is a lot of discussion at the Planning Board and a lot of <br /> discussion at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. He hopes that the dialogue would start earlier so that <br /> they are not so far apart when they get to this meeting. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.