OCPB agenda 030216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 Craig Benedict: So these do not get referred back to you unless the commission determines. 158 159 Lydia Wegman: So the commission could vote in February to approve this and we would not see it again? 160 161 Craig Benedict: That’s correct. So there’s some streamlining that we just accomplished as one of our goals for certain 162 things that are more housekeeping items like this. 163 164 Lydia: All right, any other comments or questions? 165 166 Lisa Stuckey: Okay, so I move approval of the statement of the consistency which is attachment 2 and the proposed 167 amendment package which is attachment 3 and that they be forwarded to the County Commissioners from the 168 Planning Board. 169 170 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve the text amendment. Seconded by Laura Nicholson 171 VOTE: Passed 9-1 (Tony Blake) 172 173 Tony Blake: I’m opposed. I’m opposed because I think that there’s room for other notification in the event of a major 174 enterprise or undertaking, such as an airport. 175 176 Lisa Stuckey: It occurs to me that that could be part of the airport amendments. 177 178 Tony Blake: Sure, well I don’t know so it’s not clear to me that you could amend the airport thing and have it 179 supersede this or what. That I’m not clear on. It’s my way of highlighting it. 180 181 Lisa Stuckey: I think that’s not a bad idea. 182 183 Lydia Wegman: Yeah. Craig or Perdita, any comments on that? 184 185 Perdita Holtz: That’s something that can be looked at when we go forward with the airport regulations, that the ORC 186 looked at in November. 187 188 Paul Guthrie: I just want to follow up on that. I think that’s right for the point that he’s making. I think there are some 189 issues beyond that that we could stumble into that you may at some point want to give yourself a background policy 190 to help you carry that out and don’t hit them blind without any resource other than the fact that the rules didn’t say we 191 had to do it. I can think of lots or monster projects that don’t take up a lot of ground that could have a great deal of 192 interest in the County as a whole, and so I think you need to think whether you need some kind of framing that will 193 give you the latitude to move ahead and not get stopped with procedural issues at the beginning. 194 195 Perdita Holtz: Well, there have been instances in the past, Paul, when there have been major actions that we’ve 196 gone out and done informational sessions and stuff like that, and that’s done on a case by case basis depending on 197 what the action is. It’s just, we haven’t done anything like that for the past 2 or 3 years because there haven’t been 198 major actions, but there is precedent that we’ve done stuff like that. 199 200 Lydia Wegman: And I’ll just add if I could, that it seems to be that those are projects that would come up as 201 independent or individual projects where it might come up, as opposed to something that would easily generally 202 define in the UDO text amendment. 203 204 Perdita Holtz: Yes, and that’s just something that the County can undertake as part of their discretion in being a 205 government, particularly with the County’ as the instigator. As you know, it gets dicier if it’s a SUP. 206 207 Craig Benedict: When we submit to the commissioners say, an amendment outline form, they ask us to do something 208 and we develop this form to say, “this is how we think we can accomplish it, this is what Boards may be involved, 209 maybe the environmental board is part of the amendment process.” And we also suggest public outreach that may 210 be beyond what the code says and that would be an opportunity for the commission to say, “Well, we think there 211 8 8