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

Browse Search

7 1 Commissioner Jacobs asked Planner Davis to discuss the difference in 2 requirements between minor and major subdivisions. Planner Davis explained the differences. Chair 3 Gordon stated that she believed staff would make the decision about minor or major subdivisions. Chair 4 Gordon stated that a change had occurred in the 2-year rule and Planning Director Benedict concurred. 5 There is not an accumulative rule. 6 Commissioner Jacobs expressed his belief that deleting many of these 7 time limits is a good action. He asked questions of Planning Director Benedict,which were addressed. 8 Planning Board Member Barry Katz made reference to the website run by 9 the Town of Cary, North Carolina, and stated that the Cary website includes a timellne for development. 10 Member Katz suggested Orange County might want to develop and fumish similar information. 11 Planning Board Member Robert Strayhorn expressed the importance of 12 informing the public as to the duration of time necessary to have action on an item taken by the Planning 13 Department. Member Strayhorn also wanted to stress the importance of minor subdivisions to rural .14 Orange County. 15 (6) Audience Comments: 16 Emily Cameron distributed a prepared statement that addressed her 17 support for staying within the timeframes. Ms. Cameron also had concerns about the actual text of the 18 amendments if the Board of County Commissioners approves them. Commissioner Brown asked Ms. 19 Cameron if there was ever a concept plan that was denied. Ms. Cameron stated that the majority of the 20 time, they could work it out with the developer. 21 Planning Board Member Lynn Holtkamp made a statem*ent about limiting 22 the timeframes. Ms. Cameron stated the timeframe for a preliminary plan was 85 days. Upon review of 23 the concept plan, any concerns should immediately be addressed with the developer for quick resolution. 24 Ms. Cameron reiterated that she does not feel any additional time is necessary. 25 Vic Knight, of Miller Road, stated that he has many concerns about the 26 elimination of timeframes. While he agreed with extending the 3-day appeal timelines, he believes those 27 within Orange County who have rural developments represent a large portion of the population, and 28 would see these open-ended timeframes as problems. Mr. Knight does not want to have time limits 29 eliminated. 30 Paul Kempa,4726 Green Riley Road, made reference to Planning Board 31 Member Robert Strayhorn's comments about keeping the process for developing a minor subdivision 32 separate from the one for major subdivisions. Mr. Kempa believes it is important to leave the dates in 33 the ordinance. 34 Steve Yuhasz, 3710 St. Mary's Road, is a land surveyor and expressed his 35 belief that elimination of time limits is not a good idea and urged the Board of County Commissioners not 36 to do so. He stated that if all timeframes are eliminated, then accountability at the staff level is also 37 eliminated. Mr. Yuhasz stated that knowing that there is an end to the process encourages people to go 38 into the process. If the ordinance is changed, there is no appeal of anything to the Planning Board or the 39 Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Yuhasz believes that to eliminate any kind of appeal process from 40 the ordinance is a mistake. Mr. Yuhasz also stated that it would be wrong to force urban rules on a rural 41 area, and that the only process changes between minor and major subdivisions is procedural. Mr. 42 Yuhasz also stated that there had been no suggestion that staff meet with developers before making 43 changes to the process, instead of making the developers part of the changes that are proposed. Mr. 44 Yuhasz again stated the need for an appeal mechanism to be built into the system. 45 Mark O'Neal, of Pickett Sprouse Real Estate, stated that he supports the 46 timelines. Mr. O'Neal stated that in Durham County, North Carolina, there is a development review 47 board that meets once a week. 48 John Hartwell, of Lawrence Road, stated that he does not like the proposal 49 because it is not good government in that there are safeguards built into the ordinance. If there is a need 50 to change a time, then specifically address that change. Mr. Hartwell stated that there was a logic that 51 led to the initial adoption of the 2-year concept plan. Mr. Hartwell stated he would like to see the abuses 52 remedied, but not by eliminating the timelines within the ordinance.