ORC minutes 080118 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

David Blankfard asked if one article could be added to the ordinance to note the new effective date. Michael Harvey answered that this is a possibility but the planning department erred on the side of being verbose until the legal review is complete and a determination has been made whether to change the date throughout or add an article with the new date. AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - To review and discuss proposed amendments to the UDO to streamline and revise provisions related to the Board of Adjustment. PRESENTER : Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor Michael Harvey explained that elected officials have tasked the county attorney’s office with streamlining provisions related to the Board of Adjustment. He reviewed some of the general amendment proposals, starting on Page 8 of the agenda packet. Regarding the changes proposed to 2.2.4B, Lydia Wegman pointed out it doesn’t make sense as written because the applicants would have the application and therefore do not need to be provided with their application. Michael Harvey flagged it for the attorney’s office. Regarding the Neighborhood Meeting section on Page 17, Lydia Wegman said she understands the attorney’s comment but feels the purpose of the neighborhood meeting should not be undermined. Michael Harvey reviewed the purpose of the public hearing is to hear sworn testimony and evidence and the importance of the neighborhood meeting is that the applicant can hear from neighbors and perhaps make modifications that satisfy the neighbors before the public hearing. Lydia Wegman said the neighborhood meeting can be important in that way and she doesn’t want the language amended in a way that doesn’t reflect that. Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict said he agrees that it is important to explain the differences between the neighborhood meeting and the public hearing. Randy Marshall said the language needs to be more descriptive for Neighborhood Information Meeting. It has implied that attendees will receive information but with the removal of the redlined language, it makes it a staff meeting. He suggested two meetings, with one held by the applicant and one by staff. Michael Harvey said there should just be one neighborhood meeting. Some applicants take the reins for these meetings. For instance, the applicants for Settler’s Point chose to hold four neighborhood meetings and staff attended two. Staff attends to explain the public hearing and approval process. Michael Harvey said he would let the attorney know the committee members are concerned with the changes in this section. Paul Guthrie said the following two changes narrows the property owners who are contacted. Michael Harvey said the attorney took out language describing adjacent property owners. He said the logic here is consistency with state law because by contacting property owners whose property is not adjacent, you may be giving people rights they don’t enjoy under the law. Lydia Wegman asked about 1,000 feet. Michael Harvey said 1,000 feet is always the standard. The attorney’s office is making a recommendation contrary to that because currently the county may be giving authority to people who don’t have it. Michael Harvey reviewed 2.79B1, explaining the attorney is concerned the language is too limiting. The county has had issues where it can’t make a public hearing happen because of