Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 4/3/19 <br />exhibits, documents, models, plans and other materials that the applicant is intending to use to persuade whatever board 449 <br />the request meets the requirements for whatever, Variance Interpretation or Special Use Permit. I think that James’s 450 <br />concern about establishing references to this existing burden, while some may believe is implicit in the ordinance, that the 451 <br />specific language needs to be added was reasonable which was why I added it. The fact that you all don’t agree, that’s 452 <br />your prerogative but some of the comments made about how this language got in here and what my purported motives are 453 <br />is a little unfortunate and somewhat insulting. 454 <br /> 455 <br />James Bryan: Wait, from me? 456 <br /> 457 <br />Michael Harvey: From the group. 458 <br /> 459 <br />James Bryan: Oh, you can clarify if I was wrong, if I misspoke. 460 <br /> 461 <br />Michael Harvey: This language was put in there to address a concern over legal sufficiency and after 45 minutes of you 462 <br />and I coming to an understanding of what those concerns are, I thought what was crafted was reasonable. I don’t 463 <br />necessarily believe this was added….it wasn’t something that I thought was 100% necessary to add to begin with which is 464 <br />why you and I had 45 minute of discussion on it. I understood you concern and attempted to address it because part of 465 <br />my role with this project is to address concerns over legal sufficiency. 466 <br /> 467 <br />James Bryan: Ok 468 <br /> 469 <br />Carrie Fletcher: From what I am seeing, as everyday citizens, I think I feel that we have an obligation to try to protect the 470 <br />everyday citizenry and if that came across then I am not going to apologize but I understand that you see it from a different 471 <br />side than we do and if that’s confrontational, I apologize and I don’t mean to come across….. 472 <br /> 473 <br />Michael Harvey: I guess what I’m getting offended at is that the perception that I am not interested in protecting the 474 <br />common citizenry or that I am simply adding this language as some form of barrier for common citizens hindering their 475 <br />ability to get approvals of variances, interpretations, or special use permits. Further that somehow I concocted all of this all 476 <br />on my own which is inconsistent with the facts. That is incredibly insulting. 477 <br /> 478 <br />Carrie Fletcher: Maybe we all get a little over defensive about it. I don’t mean to be offensive but I think in this 479 <br />environment of government everyone gets a little edgy about making sure we’re protected in a way then verbiage is 480 <br />correct. 481 <br /> 482 <br />Lydia Wegman: So, I’m just going to jump in here and say I think that, I hope we all respect one another and that I feel 483 <br />and I think this is true of the Board that we all very much respect Michael, James and Craig and the work that you do and 484 <br />that we recognize that you are trying to serve all the citizens of Orange County in a fair way recognizing that some of these 485 <br />things are complicated and difficult for individuals to make sense of and you are trying to be as clear as possible so that 486 <br />everyone looks at this code and understands what is required. No one is suggesting, I don’t believe anyone is in this room 487 <br />is suggesting that there was anything other than that motivating this effort. The fact that some of us may be confused or 488 <br />concerned about this language is the way we are reading it but that has nothing to do with what you were trying to do in 489 <br />writing it. I certainly, we all understand that you are trying to help citizens of Orange County move forward with their 490 <br />applications in these SUPs and Variances. 491 <br /> 492 <br />Michael Harvey: Regardless of the vote that is about to occur, and I am going to make the same comment in any other 493 <br />motions that are made this evening, I like to offer a friendly amendment to the motion to approve. 494 <br /> 495 <br />Lydia Wegman: Please do. 496 <br /> 497 <br />Michael Harvey: In our haste to get this done, there are a couple of section references that I neglected to update, and I’ve 498 <br />just discovered. So, with your indulgence, what I would like to point out is that the amendment, the approval would need to 499 <br />include updating section reference in what is Section 2.10.2 Applicant Requirements Subsection B number 4; the 500 <br />narrative outlining the answers to the five required findings detailed within it reads currently Section 2.10.3 that is now 501 <br />actually become Section 2.10.4 with the re-numbering. 502 <br /> 503