Minutes 01-23-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

24 Michael Harvey said regulations embodied within the UDO will have to be adhered to, unless specifically modified. He said in most instances, the Applicant is being more restrictive. He said if these ten parcels were developed under current County land use policy there would be three times more building area that could be permitted on each parcel than the Applicant is proposing. He said there are more restrictive utility conditions associated with this project than currently required under section 6.20 of the UDO. He said there are specific allowances governing building and architectural development, and as Commissioner Marcoplos has pointed out, there are conditions in this proposal encouraging the development of solar facilities. He said the Planning Board has voted unanimously to recommend approval, subject to the issuance of conditions. He said he spoke with some Planning Board members, who recalled the vote on the condition associated with electric charging stations to be 7 ayes, 4 nays. Michael Harvey reviewed the recommendations: Recommendation 1. Receive the additional information on the application as detailed within abstract and attachments. 2. Accept additional comments from the staff, Planning Board, and the general public. 3. Close the public hearing. 4. Decide on one of the following options: a. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; b. Adopt the Statement of Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s) (Attachment 10), the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas and imposing conditions (Attachment 11); or c. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year period begins on the date of denial.) Commissioner Jacobs asked if Michael Harvey would clarify the quote given during public comment, in which he stated that the public cannot affect the outcome. Michael Harvey said that referred to site plan reviews, which the public cannot influence. He said the public can comment to staff on the review of a permitted use, but cannot influence the outcome, as staff must follow the ordinance as it prescribes development should and should not occur. Commissioner Rich asked if Michael Harvey would review how the County contacts residents to invite them to any public meetings. Michael Harvey said notification materials were included at the November 14th public hearing for a neighborhood information meeting at UNC Hospital, where staff and the Applicant were present to discuss the process and the project. He said the Applicant held two additional neighborhood meetings. He said notices of the Planning Board meeting were sent out to all properties within 1000 feet of this project, as well as of the public hearing. He said signs were posted on the property in accordance with the applicable standards of the UDO, advertising the neighborhood meeting, the Planning Board meeting and the public hearing. Commissioner Jacobs said there are several things about this process that are frustrating: one is that the County and Town of Hillsborough are not the same. He said they try to work together, but sometimes they are not in sync; secondly, when planning, there are rules made before there is anything to judge. He said the Board and staff are listening, but there are sets of standards to go by, and the Applicant has abided by them. He said the best way to be involved in change is by serving on a board such as the Planning Board, but most people are not aware of such things, until it is their life that is affected. He said this is the situation in which we now find ourselves. He said staff is listening, but there is a set of standards before them, and the Applicant has provided its vision of how to make the standards work to their and the