Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-05-2013 - 6c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2013
>
Agenda - 11-05-2013 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 11-05-2013 - 6c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2015 1:59:54 PM
Creation date
11/4/2013 10:27:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/5/2013
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6c
Document Relationships
Minutes 11-05-2013
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2013
ORD-2013-044 Ordinance amending UDO Related to Holding a Neighborhood Information Meeting for Govermental Uses
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
33 <br />1 Michael Harvey reviewed the attachments to the abstract. He said the potential <br />2 development of a fire department substation off Neville Road has caused some concern for <br />3 local residents. He said staff was directed to initiate a text amendment to require a <br />4 neighborhood information meeting prior to the approval of any site plans proposing the <br />5 development of government use. <br />6 He said this requires the applicant to hold this meeting so that property owners within <br />7 500 feet can attend the meeting to gather information and offer feedback. <br />8 He said the applicant has to respond to concerns or suggestions offered at the meeting, <br />9 and the public must be informed by certified mail of the date and time of the meeting. <br />10 He noted that this amendment does not alter the current review process for government <br />11 uses. He said this does not require the Board to hold additional public hearings with respect to <br />12 the decision to purchase or act on the purchase of property. He said this also does not require <br />13 County agencies that engage in long range planning project planning to duplicate efforts by <br />14 holding informational meetings about projects that have already been reviewed and discussed <br />15 at the public level. He gave the example of a recent park planning project. <br />16 He said if this is adopted any time a government use is defined, the table of permitted <br />17 uses will be developed, neighborhood meetings will held, and planning staff will encourage the <br />18 applicant to address as many concerns as he /she sees fit. <br />19 He noted that the purpose of this is to insure that local residents are aware of what is <br />20 happening in the vicinity with regard to government facilities. <br />21 He said Ordinance Review Committee comments were positive with a few noted <br />22 changes and input from other departments. <br />23 He reviewed the staff recommendations as outlined in the abstract. <br />24 Pete Hallenbeck asked for questions <br />25 Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to point out the background on the first page, <br />26 which outlines the fact that a permitted use only requires staff review and action. She said <br />27 neither the County nor the applicant is required to notify adjacent property owners. She said <br />28 this is a fire station, which is for the public good. She said that neighbors still had concerns, and <br />29 she feels that neighborhood meetings and outreach are a good idea. <br />30 Commissioner Pelissier asked why staff selected that a meeting would not be required <br />31 unless the expansion was 50% or larger. <br />32 Michael Harvey said staff tried to use existing standards from the UDO regarding what <br />33 constitutes expansion. He said staff did not want smaller expansions to have to undergo a <br />34 formal site plan review process for just a couple of parking spaces. He said that larger re- <br />35 development of a site changes the nature of the project and demands a planning review. He <br />36 also wanted to treat the parks the same way. <br />37 Commissioner Pelissier asked if facilities include parking spaces or just building. <br />38 Michael Harvey said it includes both. <br />39 Chair Jacobs said he feels the neighbors in the area of the White Cross substation were <br />40 taken aback that something had appeared in their neighborhood without any awareness of the <br />41 process or the impact. He said this is a good way to address that concern. He feels it is <br />42 important to know and have a say about what is going on in your neighborhood, while balancing <br />43 the fact that government use has a certain priority. He noted that the White Cross Fire Station <br />44 is holding a neighborhood information meeting tomorrow night. He said this is a good precedent <br />45 moving forward. <br />46 Commissioner McKee said some of the neighbors that he talked to were not upset over <br />47 the fire station, but were simply upset about the lack of notification. <br />48 Commissioner Price clarified that if this goes into effect then a volunteer fire department <br />49 would have to hold an information meeting. She asked if state law supersedes this. <br />50 Michael Harvey said he is not aware of anything in state law that gives a fire department <br />51 preferential treatment from compliance with local land use regulations. <br />52 Commissioner Price said she thought that state law said that the fire stations are <br />53 permitted by right. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.