Planning Board - 020321 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T 225 Craig Benedict: That can be during an open meeting in one of our virtual meetings. You can take a look at the conditions 226 that have been proposed in the application and proposed by staff and seek to make amendments if you think that it is 227 viable to you to think that would address the impacts of the project. 228 229 Kim Piracci: I’m not comfortable with that. That is a change in what we’ve been doing. Right? 230 231 Craig Benedict: No, this was what we used at both the RTLP meeting and at the Efland Station meeting. For example 232 during the RTLP meeting, a Board member made a suggestion and that suggestion was agreed to by the Board 233 collectively and was included in the conditions voted on by the Planning Board. It is not new and it is a process that the 234 Commissioners will probably use so that new suggestions will at least have some context that the whole Board is 235 collectively interested in pursuing. 236 237 Kim Piracci: I actually don’t like this at all. What if everyone on this Board had a one-sided opinion? If the Board has to 238 agree on conditions before we ask the developers to do something then it might never happen. 239 240 Craig Benedict: All we are saying is that the member would propose to the Board a condition and the Board would then 241 decide if there was a consensus to move forward. It doesn’t restrict suggestions. It just asks the Board to have consensus 242 and that goes into a request to the developer. 243 244 Kim Piracci: I still am not comfortable with that. To have to come to consensus as a Board. To have to get the whole 245 Board to agree before a suggestion can be made…. 246 247 Melissa Poole: When we put conditions on a project, we still have to vote on it in the overall package, so whether we 248 come to consensus prior to asking or you come to a consensus with the vote, the outcome is not going to change. 249 250 Kim Piracci: It’s very different. It’s really different. 251 252 David Blankfard: Ok, moving on. 253 254 Craig Benedict: What we are proposing in 2021, is something we had done in previous years in the development of our 255 Comprehensive Plan, we had some joint meetings with other advisory boards. In preparation for an update using our 2020 256 Census data, we are going to suggest that we use that process again. That will be one of the suggestions we will bring up 257 to the Commissioners and since the other advisory board chairs will be at this virtual meeting, there may be time to 258 discuss how that interaction will happen as we move forward. 259 260 Craig Benedict continued presentation of annual work plan/goals for 2021 261 262 Craig Benedict: We can either amend some things to the annual report or add to the plan to submit to the Clerk’s Office. 263 264 David Blankfard: We probably need to circle back on how we deal with conditions, there’s a lot of debate about that. 265 266 Craig Benedict: We’ll add that to the work plan. The UDO does not state how that happens but the Board can have it’s 267 own rules on how that is done so we’ll add that the Board will be deliberating on a process or not a process. 268 269 Kim Piracci: I would like to add something to the actions/considerations for 2021. Just as there needs to be long-term 270 planning for potable water, I think that this spring there was some concern with COVID there about transportation, there 271 was only 2 – 3 days’ worth of food in grocery stores. I think it would be worthwhile for Orange County to consider if there 272 was a breakdown in transportation, how would the County feed itself. Number 9 for me would be long-term planning for 273 feeding the County, for food and food distribution. 274 275 David Blankfard: Anyone want to second that? (no response) Sorry Kim. 276 277 Adam Beeman: What is number 7? 278 279 11