Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-14-2017 - D.3 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments - Revisions to the Public Hearing Process
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2017
>
Agenda - 11-14-2017 - QPH
>
Agenda - 11-14-2017 - D.3 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments - Revisions to the Public Hearing Process
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/14/2017 2:53:06 PM
Creation date
11/14/2017 2:44:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/14/2017
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
D.2
Document Relationships
Minutes 11-14-2017
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2017
ORD-2017-025 Ordinance adopting amendments to its UDO to make desired revisions to the existing public hearing process for review of UDO, Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Atlas-related items
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
377 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 54 <br /> 55 Ashley Moncado responded that if the Planning Board had a recommendation to change the number to decide that <br /> 56 tonight in order for staff to review with the County Attorney's Office and proceed with the November Quarterly Public <br /> 57 Hearing. <br /> 58 <br /> 59 Kim Piracci stated she has spoken with BOCC members and believes they want the Planning Board to be present at <br /> 60 more meetings and want the Board's input. From that point of view, she believes they want the Board present at <br /> 61 more than two public hearings. <br /> 62 <br /> 63 Lydia Wegman stated that she believes the number should be increased to six. <br /> 64 <br /> 65 Kim Piracci agreed and thinks that BOCC would agree because they want the Planning Board to be more involved. <br /> 66 <br /> 67 Lydia Wegman recommended increasing to four,five, or six. <br /> 68 <br /> 69 Randy Marshall stated the Board members are involved citizens and will attend as able to, but is concerned about a <br /> 70 penalty if we are not able to attend six. <br /> 71 <br /> 72 Ashley Moncado stated that at this point staff is not sure if there may even be six public hearings. Also, if there are <br /> 73 only six public hearings for the year, Planning Board members would be required to go to all public hearings. If the <br /> 74 Board was interested in increasing the number,four public hearings may be more appropriate. <br /> 75 <br /> 76 Tony Blake stated he has concerns and issues with attending more meetings and being able to arrive on time due to <br /> 77 his work schedule. <br /> 78 <br /> 79 Patricia Roberts made a motion to leave it at two public hearings. <br /> 80 <br /> 81 Randy Marshall seconded. <br /> 82 <br /> 83 David Blankfard stated he had additional questions and asked who would decide to remove you from the Board if you <br /> 84 did not meet the attendance requirement. <br /> 85 <br /> 86 Craig Benedict responded an attendance log is submitted at the end of the year and the BOCC will decide to enforce. <br /> 87 <br /> 88 Alexander Gregory recommended basing the number of public hearings Planning Board members shall attend on a <br /> 89 percentage. <br /> 90 <br /> 91 Ashley Moncado responded that due to staff not knowing how many public hearings there may be in a year, it would <br /> 92 be difficult to determine what that number may be. Staff and the Board would not know what the attendance <br /> 93 threshold or requirement would be until towards the end of the year when all the public hearings have been <br /> 94 scheduled. <br /> 95 <br /> 96 Paul Guthrie stated concern with requiring attendance at more meetings may discourage people from wanting to be <br /> 97 on the Planning Board in the future who have limitations due to work, health conditions, etc. The idea is good that <br /> 98 people should commit to attend these meetings, but this language could discourage people from being on this Board. <br /> 99 <br /> 100 Lydia Wegman stated that she would prefer Section E.2 be removed or change the number. She does not support <br /> 101 the paragraph as it stands. <br /> 102 <br /> 103 Patricia Roberts withdrew her previous motion. She stated support for removing the language. <br /> 104 <br /> 105 Lydia Wegman asked the Board if there was a motion. <br /> 106 <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.