12.7.22 PB Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

38 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 OCTOBER 5,2022 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), 7 Cheeks Township Representative;Whitney Watson,At-Large Representative; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township 8 Representative; Beth Bronson,At-Large Representative; Randy Marshall,At-Large Representative; Charity Kirk,At- 9 Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; 10 Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects&GIS Supervisor; Pat 15 Mallet, Interim Current Planning Supervisor/Erosion Control, Stormwater&Engineering Supervisor;Tom Altieri, 16 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Brian Collie, Planner II; Tyler Sliger, Planner II; Carlos Sanchez, Planning 17 Technician; Tina Love,Administrative Support 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Briant Robey, Doug Barr, Beth Myers, Leah Cook, John Mark Thomas, Mimi Locathetis, Celia Rice 20 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 23 Chair Adam Beeman called the meeting to order 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETINGS 27 -To make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the LIDO pertaining to 28 Neighborhood Information Meetings. This item was introduced at the August 3, 2022 ORC meeting 29 and is scheduled for a BOCC Public Hearing in November. 30 PRESENTER: Tyler Sliger, Planner II 31 32 Tyler Sliger reviewed the proposed UDO text amendment. 33 34 Lamar Proctor: So this amendment is proposing taking Planning completely out of the NIM process? 35 36 Tyler Sliger: Yes. Like other jurisdictions,this puts the responsibility on the applicant. I couldn't find another jurisdiction 37 where they have a planner do this. 38 39 Lamar Proctor: Personally, it scares me because it seems like you are putting the fox in charge of the hen house. You 40 are going to leave the applicant who has a monetary interest in a land use change completely in charge of providing 41 information, posting, noticing. You are putting the applicant who has the monetary incentive for this thing to pass,they 42 are going to make a lot of money,they are unilaterally informing and noticing those neighbors who are most directly 43 affected without any oversight or even availability of planning to answer questions to the general public. That seems 44 hugely irresponsible to me. 45 46 Tyler Sliger: That is what the report is for. If they do not meet the requirements, they are not following procedure. They 47 would have to have the Neighborhood Information Meeting. 48 49 Lamar Proctor: Then they can just report whatever they want to report there is no independent witness to verify the 50 authenticity or credibility of what the developer who has a huge interest in making sure it passes,that it's verified and 51 true in the report. It says on page 15 sub 5 that the applicant shall submit a written report of the NIM to the Planning 52 Department before a public hearing is held and the written report shall include those things. So, before a public hearing 53 is held. 54 55 Tyler Sliger: Correct, before they get to this point they have to have a Neighborhood Information Meeting.