Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
?3 <br /> Committee with instructions to provide a <br /> recommendation to the Planning Board by its April 18 <br /> meeting. The proposals are those suggested by <br /> Commissioners Gordon and Insko (copies attachments <br /> to these minutes on pages ) . <br /> The amendments were provided to the Ordinance Review <br /> Committee for review/discussion on March 29, 1994 . <br /> All amendments related to the proposed I-40/Old NC <br /> 86 District were deleted. <br /> This item is for review and discussion only. The <br /> proposals will be placed on the Planning Board's <br /> April 18 meeting for recommendation. <br /> Waddell reported from the Ordinance Review <br /> Committee, noting that there seemed to be two <br /> approaches to this issue. One approach was the <br /> desire to reduce the number of meetings, <br /> requirements, and hoops through which a developer <br /> must jump in order to get commercial development in <br /> Orange County. The thought was that by streamlining <br /> the process and spelling out just what commercial <br /> enterprises must do and making the process shorter <br /> in time, we might protect the County and provide for <br /> more growth in certain selected areas. <br /> Waddell continued that it appeared to the Ordinance <br /> Review Committee that Commissioner Gordon's <br /> suggestions seemed to introduce more steps in the <br /> process, thereby going back to the prior paradigm of <br /> meetings and/or "hoops" for the potential developer <br /> to jump through. The Committee attempted to strike <br /> a balance between optimizing the flow for the <br /> developer along with the protection of the <br /> environment and the interests of the County. Waddell <br /> continued that the proposals the Commissioners <br /> approved on March 2 were the results of an eight- <br /> year process that attempted to strike equal ground. <br /> It appeared to the Committee that Commissioner <br /> Gordon's request was more toward the old process <br /> with the additional reviews/steps rather than that <br /> which had been developed over the past eight years. <br /> Brown asked what happened to the cost-benefit <br /> analysis. Collins responded that one of <br /> Commissioner Gordon's original suggestions had been <br /> that the districts be monitored for two to three <br /> years. The Planning Board and Staff had recommended <br /> that concerns of cost-benefit analysis be addressed <br /> through monitoring of two to three years (or longer) <br /> and the preparation of an annual report for the <br /> Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. Waddell <br />