OCPB agenda 110514 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Because these two points necessitate changes in existing process, additional discussion has arisen. The most important points to consider are: • Does the Planning Board recommendation occur before or after a BOCC-only public hearing? • Does increasing the frequency of public hearings cause too great a change in BOCC meeting agenda internal processes and potentially impact BOCC meetings/calendars too much? • What is the role of the Planning Board in quasi-judicial matters (Special Use Permits) if the Planning Board is no longer an official board at the public hearing? • Additionally, a separate text amendment related to neighborhood information meetings in advance of Special Use Permit applications has raised questions about how the public can be more involved in matters prior to the public hearing. In analyzing this topic, Staff believes it may be helpful to breakdown future discussion based on the type of decision being made: 1. Legislative a. Comprehensive Plan Text b. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map c. UDO Text d. Zoning Atlas (map) Amendments (general use districts and conditional zoning districts) 2. Quasi-Judicial a. Class A Special Use Permits (SUP) 3. Legislative/Quasi-Judicial Mix a. Conditional Use District (a rezoning that also requires a Class A SUP) At the present time, Orange County’s process is generally the same for these three different (from a legal perspective) types of public hearings. However, the process can be different for each type if the local government so chooses. Quasi-Judicial matters have very specific legal requirements whereas there is significant discretion in Legislative matters. Staff compiled a list of public hearing items since May 2011 (the date was chosen because the UDO was adopted in April 2011) to determine the breakout of the types of items Orange County has considered in recent years and the initiator of the item (Application by an Individual or County-initiated). The following table illustrates the information: Summary by Application Type/Initiator Total Legislative Quasi-Judicial Legis./ QJ Mix Applicant 16 (24%) 8 6 2 County 50 (76%) 50 - - Totals 66 58 (88%) 6 (9%) 2 (3%) Planning staff met with Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck on September 25 to discuss this topic. The most salient points discussed during this meeting are included in Attachment 1 and may be helpful in framing thoughts. The Planning Board extensively discussed this topic at its October 8, 2014 meeting (minutes are available as a separate item on the November 5th Planning Board agenda). Discussion at that meeting intermingled Legislative and Quasi- Judicial processes but was clear enough on Legislative items to allow staff to prepare an interim report for the November 6th Board of County Commissioners meeting. The interim report 48