OCPB minutes 030613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/3/13 5 Michael Harvey: Or we make the formal determination we cannot make an affirmative finding a permit can be 217 issued unless we have more detail. 218 219 Tony Blake: I am trying to understand the historical context here. I realize that was the only water supply when 220 that was put in effect. I don’t understand why around Little River is 6% and others are not. 221 222 Craig Benedict: Part of University Lake is to ask OWASA what they know from history. That goes back before the 223 watershed rules were put in effect in 1994. Little River was in protection for a Durham water supply and that is not 224 a requirement of the state just Orange County protecting water supply. In Cane Creek, it is a very small watershed 225 and we are going to see what the differences or state mandates are in excess of that. 226 227 Herman Staats: The only other issue is the interaction with the public so if you use the storm water guidelines but 228 then you have the discretion of the requiring a professional plan, what will be the most public friendly. 229 230 Michael Harvey: There is language in the code that gives us discretion of requiring a professionally prepared site 231 plan if we can’t make a decision with respect to the issuance of permit and what is proposed complies with County 232 regulations. The typical cadence for a permit review now is that local residents, developers, etc. come to the 233 planning department and we do a site assessment. That provides a brief explanation, examination of the natural 234 features on a property. We have been directed by the BOCC to provide you with OWASA feedback in response to 235 the change in the ordinance and they will be giving you some history. 236 237 Lisa Stuckey: At this point, we are waiting for OWASA? 238 239 Michael Harvey: We are looking to answer your questions tonight and give us feedback on the option preference. 240 What I have heard here is that there is a consensus for pursuing Option “c” while awaiting a response from 241 OWASA. 242 243 244 Agenda Item 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation 245 to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to make changes to 246 the section regarding the Planning Board’s Rules of Procedure. This item was heard at the 247 February 25, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 248 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 249 250 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract. 251 252 MOTION by Larry Wright to accept the changes. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell. 253 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 254 255 256 Agenda Item 10: PLANNING BOARD LIAISON TO THE OUTBOARD – To nominate a Planning Board member to fill 257 the position on the OUTBoard designated for a Planning Board member. 258 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 259 260 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract. 261 262 Alan Campbell: Explained his work on the OUTBoard. 263 264 Andrea Rohrbacher: I would like to volunteer. 265 266 MOTION by Alan Campbell to accept Andrea Rohrbacher. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell. 267 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 268 269 270