Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 110415
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2015
>
OCPB agenda 110415
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2018 4:21:23 PM
Creation date
3/7/2018 4:17:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/4/2015
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 110415
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Minutes\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
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
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been <br />renumbered. <br />16 <br />Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment <br />54. <br />After staff and advisory board review, project went through <br />County Attorney review. Lengthened the process. Why didn’t <br />County Attorney review occur concurrent with staff review? <br />Streamline. <br />This process has been streamlined via internal processes. <br />55. <br />A time-line chart for each land-use review process (re-zoning, <br />subdivision, permits, land use amendments etc.) should be made <br />showing who reviews each step and when. <br />A process chart was included in Article 2 of the UDO for many of the <br />processes. <br />56.Identify time lags and the reason - such as delays caused by review <br />board’s schedules.see #51 above <br />57.Identify how approval processes can be simple, efficient, and <br />short.see #51 above <br />58. <br />Examine other review and approval processes such as Durham’s <br />Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and Design District <br />Review Team (DDRT) which are efficient and streamlined. <br />59. <br />The members of the above DAC and DDRT are similar to Orange <br />County’s Development Advisory Committee (DAC) but have Rules <br />of Procedure, meetings, minutes and quorum requirements <br />consistent with state Statutes. This could replace our current <br />review approval processes when a rezoning application meets all <br />applicable standards. <br />Because a rezoning must be approved by the local elected officials, staff <br />believes that perhaps this commenter was referring to subdivision <br />approvals, not rezoning applications. <br />60.Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should <br />add this as an expectation or requirement. <br />Rather than adding this to the UDO, staff would recommend that this <br />become a policy instead of part of an ordinance. The County maintains <br />electronic notification lists, which includes the ability to be notified when <br />BOCC agendas are posted to the County website. Additionally, in late <br />2014, the Planning Department started posting a list of current <br />development projects on its webpage so interested people can regularly <br />check the information for items of interest. <br /> 95
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.