Planning Board agenda 040319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T exhibits, documents, models, plans and other materials that the applicant is intending to use to persuade whatever board 449 the request meets the requirements for whatever, Variance Interpretation or Special Use Permit. I think that James’s 450 concern about establishing references to this existing burden, while some may believe is implicit in the ordinance, that the 451 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 your prerogative but some of the comments made about how this language got in here and what my purported motives are 453 is a little unfortunate and somewhat insulting. 454 455 James Bryan: Wait, from me?456 457 Michael Harvey: From the group.458 459 James Bryan: Oh, you can clarify if I was wrong, if I misspoke.460 461 Michael Harvey: This language was put in there to address a concern over legal sufficiency and after 45 minutes of you 462 and I coming to an understanding of what those concerns are, I thought what was crafted was reasonable. I don’t 463 necessarily believe this was added….it wasn’t something that I thought was 100% necessary to add to begin with which is 464 why you and I had 45 minute of discussion on it. I understood you concern and attempted to address it because part of 465 my role with this project is to address concerns over legal sufficiency.466 467 James Bryan: Ok468 469 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 everyday citizenry and if that came across then I am not going to apologize but I understand that you see it from a different471 side than we do and if that’s confrontational, I apologize and I don’t mean to come across…..472 473 Michael Harvey: I guess what I’m getting offended at is that the perception that I am not interested in protecting the 474 common citizenry or that I am simply adding this language as some form of barrier for common citizens hindering their 475 ability to get approvals of variances, interpretations, or special use permits. Further that somehow I concocted all of this all 476 on my own which is inconsistent with the facts. That is incredibly insulting.477 478 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 environment of government everyone gets a little edgy about making sure we’re protected in a way then verbiage is 480 correct.481 482 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 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 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 things are complicated and difficult for individuals to make sense of and you are trying to be as clear as possible so that 486 everyone looks at this code and understands what is required. No one is suggesting, I don’t believe anyone is in this room 487 is suggesting that there was anything other than that motivating this effort. The fact that some of us may be confused or 488 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 writing it. I certainly, we all understand that you are trying to help citizens of Orange County move forward with their 490 applications in these SUPs and Variances.491 492 Michael Harvey: Regardless of the vote that is about to occur, and I am going to make the same comment in any other 493 motions that are made this evening, I like to offer a friendly amendment to the motion to approve.494 495 Lydia Wegman: Please do.496 497 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 just discovered. So, with your indulgence, what I would like to point out is that the amendment, the approval would need to 499 include updating section reference in what is Section 2.10.2 Applicant Requirements Subsection B number 4; the 500 narrative outlining the answers to the five required findings detailed within it reads currently Section 2.10.3 that is now 501 actually become Section 2.10.4 with the re-numbering. 502 503 23