OCPB minutes 060315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/1/2015 9 393 Craig Benedict: We don’t know how many people get to planning. We have a very strict limit in Orange 394 County. We are suggesting minor flexibility that 6% may be difficult. Our standards are very tight. We are 395 still 25% below what the state allows us to do. 396 397 Maxecine Mitchell: When you talk about purchasing a home and being a realtor myself, I guarantee you 398 that lady didn’t say, at some point I am going to add a swimming pool. If you do that a realtor may be able 399 to direct you. The staff did inform Commissioner Barry Jacobs was concerned about the critical watershed. 400 Is this place falling into that area? 401 402 Michael Harvey: Yes ma’am, we did not amend the proposal to exclude this option. 403 404 Buddy Hartley: I do like what staff has done with this giving flexibility and still has guidelines that will have 405 to be enforced with this. They are consistent with the UDO and I like the package they have put together. 406 407 Herman Staats: I agree with that and following Craig’s comment that Orange County does have strict 408 definitions on these things. 409 410 Pete Hallenbeck: It’s easy to look at that and say if you approve this, all you have to do is put down this 411 spongy concrete and you are good to go but to exceed the limits you have to have an engineered solution 412 that is a BMP. 413 414 Michael Harvey: Obviously, there is the hope for some people who have talked to staff about this, you 415 have to show us this will not result in a negligible increase in runoff or basically water quality issues. That 416 was a selling point to OWASA. 417 418 Pete Hallenbeck: It is an engineered solution. It is an option available. 419 420 Lisa Stuckey: People let stuff go. 421 422 Tony Blake: I agree with that. I wonder if this is a problem in search of a solution. When people see what 423 this is really going to cost them, do we really want to add an artificial complexation in reaction to this one 424 instance? I wouldn’t vote against this but I think there is an easier solution elsewhere. 425 426 Pete Hallenbeck: I think its clear people want to see a performance bond, inspections, I want everyone to 427 understand that it is an engineered solution you don’t just put things down. We have a statement of 428 consistency. There is a document called the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO and the two are often in 429 conflict that we shouldn’t be changing structure and detail unless in aligns with the general Comprehensive 430 Plan. The statement of consistency is that it is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed 431 amendment package. 432 433 MOTION made by Buddy Hartley that this is consistent with the Compressive Plan. Seconded by Bryant 434 Warren. 435 436 Lisa Stuckey: I would be much more comfortable with this if putting up a bond were required? 437 438 Michael Harvey: You will be adding that in a motion to approve, you will be including that. 439 440 VOTE: 11 to 1 no (Lydia Wegman) 441