Agenda - 06-03-2008-5b5b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 and the applicant through the public hearing process. The staff is asking the Board to allow the 2 Planning Board to review this and make a recommendation no later than May 7, 2008. ( " 3 Commissioner Gordon asked what happens if conditions are proposed and the applicant 4 does not agree, then could the project be denied. Michael Harvey said that if the Board of 5 County Commissioners wishes to impose a condition for set reasons based on the information 6 provided during the quasi judicial process and the applicant refuses, and the Board of County 7 Cornrnissioners believes that the condition is vital to addressing a component of complying with 8 local regulatory or policy requirements, then that would be a basis for recommending denial. 9 Geaf Gledhill agreed and said that he would recommend that it be handled at the 10 rezoning decision level and that the Board has in place all of the conditions necessary for this 11 project to work and that there be concurrence with the developer on these conditions. If there is 12 not concurrence, then the answer would be to delay the rezoning decision. This only applies to 13 conditional use zoning or special use zoning. It does not apply to the run of the mill special use 14 permits,. where you still have authority to impose reasonable conditions. 15 .Chair Jacobs said that one of the changes is removal of public, health, safety, and 16 welfare for approval or denial. Geof Gledhill said that except in specific ways in which its 17 addressed in the process. 18 Renee Price asked if this means that the applicant has no room to appeal. 19 Geof Gledhill said that, if we all do it right, the appeal will be to a legislative decision. 20 In answer to questions from the Planning Board members, Geof Gledhill said that the 21 issue in a planned development special use process, hopefully the appeal is not going to turn on 22 the denied condition or the condition that is not agreed on, but whether or not the decision to not 23 change the rezoning was wrong. 24 Jeffrey Schmitt said that the Planning Board is not limiting the opportunity for a plaintiff of 25 this case to appeal, it's just to whom the-case is appealed. Geof Gledhill said that it is not to 26 whom, it's the nature of the decision that is being appealed. ~" C" 27 Chair Jacobs said that what the attorney is saying is that he wants the County to work so 28 that if there's an appeal, Orange County wins. 29 Jay Bryan asked if Geof Gledhill could outline his suggestions concerning the overlay of 30 conditions regarding the application with regard to the rezoning. He also asked about the 31 language. The way the statute reads is that the conditions are designed to address 32 conformance of the use of the site to. County ordinance and an officially adopted comprehensive 33 or other plan and those that address the impacts, etc. He also asked about the word "policies." 34 He is wondering if it is nat correct to include under the proposed amendment part 4 7.5.5 that 35 the County Commissioners may grant the application in accordance with PD and other County 36 regulations; the Comprehensive Plan, any other plans, and County policies. 37 Michael Harvey said that under section 7.5.5, the conditions refer back to section 7.2.4, 38 which is where the language is about the Comprehensive Plan and County regulations. He said 39 that the Comprehensive Plan is the ultimate policy guide for the County. He said that he could 40 throw something in 7.5.5 if it would address the concern, but he believes it has been addressed 41 already. 42 Jay Bryan asked that the language match in 7.5.5 and 7.2.4. 43 44 PUBLIC COMMENT: 45 NONE. 46 47 A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to 48 refer the amendment package to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request 49 that a recommendation be submitted no later than May 7, 2008. 50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ~ 51