ORD-2000-020 Text Amendments to Subdivision Requlations and Zoning Ordinance

Browse Search

o•�lJ -�a�- Uza b. Text Amendments to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance Planning Director Craig Benedict made this presentation. He said that the text amendments that are being addressed in the ordinance refer directly to an item that was on the public hearing agenda on August 23, 1999 and involve the timeframe in which decisions must be made for both subdivisions and zoning. The original item that was brought before the public hearing removed all timelines for staff, Planning Board, and the County Commissioners. There were no deadlines 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 sent additional notices out to another 20 developers and representatives in the area and met with them in October. Of the 30 notices that were sent out, only three showed 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 Planning Board,there were guidelines placed on the decision process for the staff and the Planning Board. One of the differences is that if a decision is not 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 Planning 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 County Commissioners are allowed to table the item for a "reasonable amount of time." In addition, the language for an appeal has been modified to give a 15-day period of time for an appeal. Commissioner Brown clarified that the"reasonable amount of time"was not allowing the Board to put off the decision, but to ask legitimate questions and actually work on making a decision. Craig Benedict pointed out that the Planning Board recommends that after the item is placed on the Board of County Commissioners'agenda,the decision is to be made 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 bottom of page 30 the wording should be clarified to say, "during deliberations 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 Planning Department shall notify the applicant of its action in writing." Commissioner Jacobs said that he does not agree with the Planning Board about having a 60-day deadline on the Board's decision. He made reference to the appeal of the preliminary 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 Commissioners. He asked if there was a difference between matters of interpretation of the subdivision regulations and policy issues related to the subdivision regulations. He does not think that the County Commissioners need to be involved in the appeal process unless it is a policy 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, rarely is the staff denying a private road where it is justified under the regulations. 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 referred to the County Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendation 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 application being sent by certified mail, she feels it should be left as certified mail so there is a receipt indicating that the application was sent. The Board agreed that the application should be sent by certified mail. Craig Benedict said that the staff has reviewed some of the State laws on advertising and they are suggesting, as they go through the comprehensive plan in the future,that there will be some very thorough and elaborate advertising guidelines. He would like to find other means of communication (i.e., internet, newspaper, etc.). He said that he would move the statement back to certified mail. Commissioner Brown feels it is important that the citizens are well served by these revisions. She would like to see something come back to the Board about public notification of development. She is concerned that there is not enough time for citizens to respond to development proposals. She made reference to section nine and asked why the concept plan was extended from one year to two years. Craig Benedict said that this would be a benefit to the developer because after a concept plan is received,there would be a longer time period to resubmit the preliminary plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the administration's recommendation for text amendments to subdivision regulations and the