OCPB minutes 080217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9/6/17 3 for “Open Space” instead of “C” for “Common Open Space.” Mr. Mallett said that these changes make it so this 107 version is as close to the November 2016 as possible. This version will not be exactly the same since other 108 aforementioned parts of the UDO have changed since November 2016. He concluded his presentation and asked if 109 there were any questions. 110 111 Lydia Wegman asked if anyone had questions or comments. 112 113 Michael Harvey said that whoever is making the motion to reflect the changes as recommended by the County 114 Attorney’s Office and the addendum that was submitted this evening . 115 116 MOTION by Randy Marshall (to reflect what Michael Harvey stated above). Seconded by David Blankfard. 117 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 118 119 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – REORGANIZATION OF TABLES OF 120 PERMITTED USES – To make a recommendation to the BOCC government – initiated 121 amendments to the UDO that would reorganize the Tables of Permitted Uses in response to 122 the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision and modify other sections to endure consistency 123 within the ordinance. This item is scheduled for the September 11, 2017 quarterly public 124 hearing. 125 PRESENTER: MICHAEL HARVEY 126 127 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. As Mr. Harvey explained in his email to Planning Board members, the Board 128 will not be taking action on this item tonight. The County Attorney’s Office has asked for some additional work to be 129 done to address some concerns over legal sufficiency. He also wants Staff to consider some modifications. Staff 130 could have conceivably had a packet ready for the Board for a recommendation, but this is too important to rush. 131 This item is not going before the BOCC at the September quarterly public hearing; this is going in November (date 132 to be determined since the hearing is going to be moved). Mr. Harvey said that most of his presentation would 133 focus on what the County Attorney’s Office recommended is reviewed. He asked if there were any initial comments 134 and let the Board know that this item will not be further reviewed at the next ORC meeting, but rather brought 135 before the Board at the October meeting to take action. Planning Staff will send the Board the most recent version 136 in preparation for the October meeting. Staff will keep the Board updated with their work effort and any other issues 137 that transpire. The first issue (page 134 in the packet) – Staff received a comment from the County Attorney’s Office 138 last Thursday asking Staff to combine the land use category “Composting Operation, with grinding” and 139 “Composting Operation, no grinding,” into one land use category called “Composting Operation,” and to distinguish 140 grinding/no grinding in the use standards. Staff does not object to this; the problem is that if Staff changes this 141 language, will it trigger having it to be reviewed by other entities at this juncture, especially since there was no 142 original recommended change to this section. The distinction is that Composting Operation is permitted in one 143 district with no grinding and permitted in other districts with both no grinding and grinding. From Staff’s standpoint, 144 there is no reason not to have them as separate categories, but there is also no reason not to combine them, other 145 than avoiding unnecessary delay. 146 147 Lydia Wegman asked if there is a difference between a grinding Operation verses a non-grinding Operation that 148 would be meaningful to residents. 149 150 Michael Harvey responded that yes, in terms of what districts the uses are allowed in, but that is it. He defined 151 “Composting Operation, with grinding” as the grinding down and breaking-down of materials. Planning Staff will 152 keep Board abreast of any developments. Mr. Harvey said that he was not interested in messing with the 153 “Agricultural” land use category as currently contained in the UDO. 154 155 Lydia Wegman responded that that is understandable. 156 157 Michael Harvey continued with his presentation (page 135) in regards to “Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair,” 158 “Motor Vehicle Repair Garage,” and “Motor Vehicle Service Station.” While the County Attorney understands that 159