Agenda - 09-09-2013 - E1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 1. Keep the existing quarterly public hearing process for all projects. 2. Revise the existing process only for ASE - related projects. 3. Revise the existing process for all projects. Discussion of Options Following are salient points for consideration on each of the potential options: 1. Keep the existing quarterly public hearing process for all projects. • One of the issues raised during the Comprehensive Plan and UDO development / adoption processes was the perceived need to streamline development review processes. Because the County has only 4 public hearings per year for projects involving land use /zoning issues, if an applicant misses a deadline, the next deadline can be as many as 3 months out. Orange County is fairly unique in the state in using this quarterly process (staff is aware of only one other local government in the state that has quarterly public hearings: the Town of Hillsborough). Most local governments in the state have a monthly public hearing cycle. • It should be noted that Orange County's average recent timeframe from application deadline to BOCC decision (generally 4 -5 months) is typical of other local governments in the state. • Having public hearings on land use /zoning items, which can sometimes be contentious and lengthy, on separate meeting agendas can minimize the length of regular meetings. If many people want to speak on a particular public hearing item, the length of time necessary to hear all interested person could impact later items on a regular agenda. • The process of having the BOCC approve the legal ad for quarterly public hearings adds 3 -4 weeks (depending on exact meeting dates) to the length of time from the application deadline to BOCC decision. (This added time is longer for any projects proposed for the August quarterly public hearing since the BOCC approves the legal ad at its last meeting in June). The BOCC may wish to discuss whether this is a step it desires to keep in place (this process is not part of the written process in the UDO, it is a BOCC policy). The following points may be useful: ➢ In regards to developer- initiated items, the BOCC is not able to remove or modify an item in the legal ad because the application has been filed and must go through the review /decision process. ➢ In regards to County- initiated items, since April 2011 staff has brought "Amendment Outline Forms" to the BOCC for process and schedule approval prior to significant work being done on the item. Part of the purpose of this form is to notify BOCC members of project scopes, public and advisory board involvement, and target meeting dates (including public hearing dates). 2. Revise the existing process only for ASE - related projects. • The pre -2010 ASE work proposed a different review /approval process for ASE - related projects (see flow chart in Attachment 1) in order to allow public hearings on any regular BOCC agenda. The public hearing would not be a joint Planning Board /BOCC public hearing; the Planning Board would make a recommendation on the item after the public hearing regardless of whether Planning Board members attended the public hearing. Additionally the Agricultural Preservation Board and Economic Development Commission (now renamed to Economic Development Advisory Board) would make recommendations on ASE - related projects.