ORD-2013-007 Ordinance Denying Amendment to OC Comp. Plan, UDO and Zoning Atlas

Browse Search

w jw compatible (i.e. paved)? 3. The legal authority to enforce lack of maintenance. 4. The increase in impervious square footage due to the walkway causes a restriction in the potential building size. 5. Would the 'piece-meal' implementation cause "sidewalks to nowhere" and/or affect the development design of adjacent parcels? 6. Associated liabilities to third parties by individual property owners. 7. Lack of an overall master plan for walkability. Commissioner Dorosin said he sees the seven issues as narrower than what Chair Jacobs said about connectivity plans and urbanization of the area. Commissioner McKee said his intent is that this be moved back to the Planning Board and staff for discussion and not that any comments or ideas discussed be eliminated or not considered. He said the idea of putting the plan in place and then addressing the issues is counterproductive and said that he is supportive of the village and the zoning. Chair Jacobs said #7 on page 3 is just a comment, not a direction and he questioned Commissioner McKee's intention in requesting an answer to this open ended statement. Commissioner McKee said the intention is to address the lack of overall plan or to ask what the plan is. Chair Jacobs said he wanted to clarify if the Board is directing staff to proactively address a walkability plan or just saying that there is no overall plan. Commissioner McKee said the issue of need for, or lack of need for, a master plan should be part of the Planning Board and staff's discussion. He said that his concern continues to be the 700 pages of the Economic Development Ordinance and its impact on the affordability of housing and the attractiveness of locating businesses in Orange County. Commissioner Rich said it feels like this is not ready to be voted on. Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Motion 3-c should include the additional statement to "Accept the planning director's recommendation", followed by the recommendation wording below Issue 7 on page 3, which states as follows: ...Planning Director recommends that additional study occur to create more logical, legal and cost effective regulation in regards to pedestrian systems. The development of a village pedestrian master plan with associated private maintenance authorities (should) potentially be explored Commissioner McKee accepted the friendly amendment Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification about Commissioner McKee's original statement of the issues. Chair Jacobs said that he read 3-c and then asked for answers and clarification to issues 1-7. Commissioner Gordon said she would say address the issues and then add the second point she read previously, changing the word could to should. Commissioner Rich accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Price said that liability is mentioned with regard to pedestrian walkways but she is concerned about safety and this is not mentioned. Commissioner Dorosin asked Craig Benedict about the recommendation of adoption of Attachment 2, in the interim. Craig Benedict said that, aside from the pedestrian walkway issue, there are 15-20 good aspects that are not being questioned and make sense. He said that going with 3-c throws these good things out. He said that going with Attachment 2 accepts these good things and holds off the pedestrian circulation issues. Chair Jacobs said that if you read 3-c it states that everything comes to a halt.