OCPB minutes 010616 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 Craig Benedict: So these do not get referred back to you unless the commission determines. 160 161 Lydia Wegman: So the commission could vote in February to approve this and we would not see it again? 162 163 Craig Benedict: That’s correct. So there’s some streamlining that we just accomplished as one of our goals for certain 164 things that are more housekeeping items like this. 165 166 Lydia: All right, any other comments or questions? 167 168 Lisa Stuckey: Okay, so I move approval of the statement of the consistency which is attachment 2 and the proposed 169 amendment package which is attachment 3 and that they be forwarded to the County Commissioners from the 170 Planning Board. 171 172 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve the text amendment. Seconded by Laura Nicholson 173 VOTE: Passed 9-1 (Tony Blake) 174 175 Tony Blake: I’m opposed. I’m opposed because I think that there’s room for other notification in the event of a major 176 enterprise or undertaking, such as an airport. 177 178 Lisa Stuckey: It occurs to me that that could be part of the airport amendments. 179 180 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 181 supersede this or what. That I’m not clear on. It’s my way of highlighting it. 182 183 Lisa Stuckey: I think that’s not a bad idea. 184 185 Lydia Wegman: Yeah. Craig or Perdita, any comments on that? 186 187 Perdita Holtz: That’s something that can be looked at when we go forward with the airport regulations, that the ORC 188 looked at in November. 189 190 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 191 issues beyond that that we could stumble into that you may at some point want to give yourself a background policy 192 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 193 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 194 interest in the County as a whole, and so I think you need to think whether you need some kind of framing that will 195 give you the latitude to move ahead and not get stopped with procedural issues at the beginning. 196 197 Perdita Holtz: Well, there have been instances in the past, Paul, when there have been major actions that we’ve 198 gone out and done informational sessions and stuff like that, and that’s done on a case by case basis depending on 199 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 200 major actions, but there is precedent that we’ve done stuff like that. 201 202 Lydia Wegman: And I’ll just add if I could, that it seems to be that those are projects that would come up as 203 independent or individual projects where it might come up, as opposed to something that would easily generally 204 define in the UDO text amendment. 205 206 Perdita Holtz: Yes, and that’s just something that the County can undertake as part of their discretion in being a 207 government, particularly with the County’ as the instigator. As you know, it gets dicier if it’s a SUP. 208 209 Craig Benedict: When we submit to the commissioners say, an amendment outline form, they ask us to do something 210 and we develop this form to say, “this is how we think we can accomplish it, this is what Boards may be involved, 211 maybe the environmental board is part of the amendment process.” And we also suggest public outreach that may 212 be beyond what the code says and that would be an opportunity for the commission to say, “Well, we think there 213