OCPB agenda 110613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment 53.Are there metrics and stats for approval time for each approval process? 54. After staff and advisory board review, project went through County Attorney review. Lengthened the process. Why didn’t County Attorney review occur concurrent with staff review? Streamline. This process has been streamlined via internal processes. 55. A time-line chart for each land-use review process (re-zoning, subdivision, permits, land use amendments etc.) should be made showing who reviews each step and when. A process chart was included in Article 2 of the UDO for many of the processes. 56.Identify time lags and the reason - such as delays caused by review board’s schedules.see #51 above 57.Identify how approval processes can be simple, efficient, and short.see #51 above 58. Examine other review and approval processes such as Durham’s Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and Design District Review Team (DDRT) which are efficient and streamlined. 59. The members of the above DAC and DDRT are similar to Orange County’s Development Advisory Committee (DAC) but have Rules of Procedure, meetings, minutes and quorum requirements consistent with state Statutes. This could replace our current review approval processes when a rezoning application meets all applicable standards. Because a rezoning must be approved by the local elected officials, staff believes that perhaps this commenter was referring to subdivision approvals, not rezoning applications. 60.Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should add this as an expectation or requirement. Rather than adding this to the UDO, staff would recommend that this become a policy instead of part of an ordinance. The County maintains electronic notification lists, which includes the ability to be notified when BOCC agendas are posted to the County website. 88