Agenda - 10-07-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 9 neighborhood meeting letter is being sent out within two weeks of acceptance of the application. He said the application submittal deadline can certainly be altered if the Board wants to do so. He said one reason he would urge the Board not to require notification of neighbors when an application is submitted is that a sufficiency test has to be done to determine if the application is even complete, and if it is not complete it is rejected by staff and review does not occur. Commissioner Rich said the concern she had after the experience with the solar farm is that the solar company had a long time with the planning board, and the neighbors had a very short amount of time to understand what was happening. She said something was out of balance there. Michael Harvey said the application was submitted in December of 2013, but the applicant requested the review of the application be continued from the February until the May 2014 quarterly public hearing. He said the mechanism was currently not available for staff to notify property owners that an application had been submitted beyond the existing 2 week public hearing notice. He said if one special use applicant is treated differently than others, this creates a legal issue and the county could be challenged for being arbitrary. He said the applicant chose to delay the hearing after not responding to staff emails outlining deficiencies. Commissioner McKee referred to the outline on page 80 and said the notification is sent out 15 days prior to the 30 days before the neighborhood meeting. Michael Harvey said that is correct. Commissioner Dorosin said it seems there are two different things that can be done to improve this process. He said it seems that staff feels that there is no need to hold a meeting until the application is approved, but the neighbors have an interest in what is going on. He does not see these things as irreconcilable. He referred to the monthly report received by the Board listing applications in the planning queue. He suggested that this information, including the past 3 months of applications, could be made available on the website for the public to view. He said this addresses the criticism by giving more transparency and balancing the rights of the developers and the community. He asked if this is feasible. Michael Harvey said this would not be a difficult request to accommodate. Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Dorosin's idea. She said this is something being talked about in the strategic communication plan. She said this is an example of using a tool to help people get information. She said the there may be a lot of questions, but the opportunity for the community to know what is going on is very valuable. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on the timeframe required for the meetings for major subdivisions. Michael Harvey said major subdivisions require a meeting before the Planning Board reviews a concept plan application. He said the neighborhood meeting covers the concept plan review. Commissioner Gordon asked about the timing for conditional use and conditional zoning and whether 30 days would factor into that. Michael Harvey said this would factor into the conditional use, but the conditional zoning is currently two weeks, and it will stay that way in the current ordinance. Commissioner Gordon asked what would need to be done to change the conditional zoning to the longer time period. Michael Harvey said staff has recommended that there is no need to change this, given the fact that this is a legislative item and does not require expert testimony. Commissioner Gordon said she thinks that this two week time period for conditional zoning is a mistake, because these can be more problematic than conditional use. She said this is true even though conditional re- zoning does not have a special use permit process.