Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
31 <br />Cc: James Bryan; Rich Shaw; Marabeth Carr; Jeff Thompson; Jeff Scouten; Dan Bruce; Wesley Poole <br />Subject: RE: Peer Review - proposed UDO Text Amendment <br />I have only a few comments on this proposal: <br />A UDO Article Two <br />(1) says that prior to submittal of a site plan application .................. <br />Comment - UDO Outline Form says (2) prior to any action by the County to review <br />And on the Form under the Heading at the top it says prior to issuance of a permit <br />Are these statements in conflict or at least inconsistent with Article Two (1)? <br />The outline form provides general statements detailing the proposal and does not represent anything formal or offer <br />technical aspects of how the actual amendment will read. <br />The purpose of the form is for the BOCC to understand the direction we are heading in and approve any public <br />involvement with the review of a text amendment. <br />From my standpoint the meeting is being held prior to any action by the County on a specific development proposal, <br />which is the message contained in the UDO amendment form. <br />B General <br />Both documents indicate addressing comments received. There are limits to addressing concerns that are often <br />emotional or related to some vague social issue /standard. It is difficult to provide a reasonable, fact based response to <br />these type public concerns. How will individual opinions be addressed versus issues of fact or interpretation? NIMBY's <br />are by some definitions nearly impossible to satisfactorily address. <br />I believe that there should be some limitation on the extent of response to comments. If the public says they just don't <br />want the facility in their neighborhood — how do you respond to that comment? How many negatives does the <br />applicant have to prove? <br />All we expect is for there to be a response. An acceptable response can, and more than likely will be, in the scenario <br />you provide 'We understand your concerns but this is where the proposed use is going to be located'. <br />I have shared similar comments with those who have requested this action. I have been directed to move forward <br />and allow for greater public involvement /notification of government projects with the understanding this is going to <br />be a major component we will have to deal with. <br />Remember: this proposal does not alter the 'permitted' nature of the project. As a result NIMBY arguments are <br />somewhat immaterial given the fact the 'use' is still permitted by right. <br />C UDO Article Two <br />If a public meeting is to be held prior to submittal of a site plan application how will the applicant even know that <br />his /her site plan is, from a regulatory compliance perspective, even permittable? Won't the project have to have <br />received some preliminary evaluation by Planning first before a public meeting? What if, after the public meeting, the <br />application is submitted and substantial changes are made? Does this call for another public meeting? <br />Understood. I will bring up with Craig again. Originally I had contemplated the neighborhood information meeting <br />being held after submittal of a site plan. We (i.e. Craig and 1) discussed at length and the concern was: <br />