5-a - Zoning Atlas Amendment - Conditional Zoning – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point

Browse Search

6 o Staff recommended condition formal environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for all site plan submittals. • Proposed development is consistent with existing and anticipated development within the area. • Land uses are compatible. Planning Board Comment(s): • Reviewed item at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting, • Voted to recommend approval with the imposition of conditions as recommended by the applicant, staff, and Board members, • Recommended conditions are contained in Attachment 11. Recommendation: The Administration recommends the Board: 1. Receive the proposal. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comments. 3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments at a later date are permitted). 4. Decide on one of the following options: a. Adopt Statement of Consistency (Attachment 10), Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas and imposing conditions (Attachment 11); b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; NOTE: This is the most prudent course of action to address modification of conditions to address Applicant comments/concerns, or to address new conditions as recommended by the BOCC. a. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or b. Deny the proposed amendments. Commissioner McKee made a statement to the Board of County Commissioners as related to his current employment with Summit Engineering. He said he sought direction from the County Attorney as whether he should recuse himself from this item, and received the following legal opinion below. He read North Carolina General Statute 153A-340(g), and said the Attorney concluded that he may not recuse himself from this matter. Commissioner McKee- You asked for an opinion on whether you need to recuse yourself from voting on this issue due to the fact that you work for Summit Engineering. You informed me you don’t have an interest in the properties underlying the Settler’s Point project, that in your employment you have not worked on or had involvement with the project, that your compensation from Summit is not related to or dependent on this project, that you will receive no bonuses related to this project, and that your employment is not dependent on or at risk from the fact that you may or may not vote on the project. Given these facts my analysis is as follows. The default position for determining whether you must vote on a particular agenda item is that you as a county commissioner have a duty to vote pursuant to G.S. 153A-44 which provides that the board may excuse a member from voting “only upon questions involving the member's own financial interest or official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from voting under G.S. 14-234, 153A-340(g)...” This item is not a matter of your official conduct and G.S. 14- 234, which deals with contracts, is not applicable. The remaining consideration, that of your financial interest or G.S. 153A-340(g) is what must be analyzed. In this situation the question of your financial interest, which otherwise is a separate consideration, is directly addressed by G.S. 153A-340(g) and so there is only analysis to be made, whether you may be excused pursuant to G.S. 153A-340(g). 37