Agenda - 02-21-2023; 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – Neighborhood Information Meetings

Browse Search

23 DRAFT 55 Tyler Sliger: Absolutely,that is something that Chatham County does with their NIMs they have a report that the 56 applicant fills out and it's something that we would review 14 days prior to the meeting and if something is missing then 57 it's not complete. 58 59 Randy Marshall: I was struck by Lamar's comments and 1,000 feet in some instances seems to be too short of a 60 distance for NIM notifications. Based on the size of the project, perhaps we should scale the size of the notification area 61 for NIMs. For future consideration,that might be something to think about. 62 63 Charity Kirk: Or density of the area, if it is a low density area. 64 65 Statler Gilfillen: What you're saying makes a great deal of sense,the larger a development is the more likely it is a major 66 corporate type of development and will have a different impact than something smaller. 67 68 Lamar Proctor: I have 2 concerns, I looked at google maps and looked at distances and 1,000 ft. in the County is 69 woefully inadequate. Looking at West Ten Rd., that doesn't even get you from Medline to the soccer fields and one 70 clearly effects the other. The other thing is I think most people who attend these meeting are pretty intelligent and they 71 know what everyone's role is,so I understand that it should be the applicant running the show but I do think it is 72 important to have a member of Planning there to answer questions and clarify things or to correct misstatements by a 73 developer. It makes sense that Planning shouldn't be running these things but to completely be absent seems a recipe 74 for disaster. 75 76 Randy Marshall: If it is a contentious meeting, there is some value in having staff there who can clarify issues. 77 78 Tyler Sliger: There are always people that are not going to be happy about any development no matter the size. This 79 year we had 2 or 3 and all of them were blaming Planning on why we were allowing it. It's one of those things if we are 80 not there,we are not the problem and it's on the applicant or the developer to educate. On our website we are directing 81 people to the planner for the project and the letters have the planner assigned to it as well. It's always an option to call 82 or come in to discuss. 83 84 Elizabeth Bronson: So even though you put it on the applicant you are still including the Planning Department's staff 85 contact information so that anybody from the public can follow up with planning staff and not the applicant on the details 86 of the project. 87 88 Tyler Sliger: Correct, email,direct phone line, all that is provided. 89 90 Randy Marshall: I see the role of a planner at these meetings as a referee to clarify what is allowed and not allowed so 91 that it doesn't get into an argument between applicant and neighborhood. 92 93 Elizabeth Bronson: I think that is stress on staff that is unrealistic expectation of staff. I don't see requiring staff to 94 attend. If a Planning Board member wanted to attend they would have that option. 95 96 Lamar Proctor: My concern is that a developer speaking to a poor or more rural or less educated, socioeconomically 97 depressed area that a developer can take extreme advantage and either directly or indirectly misinform the public. 98 There is just so much information that most people don't understand about this process that a developer who is looking 99 to make money and profit does not have a vested interest in properly informing the public about these things. 100 101 Beth Bronson: We would have a recording of that at a public hearing. 102 103 Lamar Proctor: Having a recording of a bunch of people being misinformed doesn't do anything. 104 105 Charity Kirk: The debate is down to whether we require staff to be there or not. Should we vote for it the way it is or is 106 there discussion about something else? 107 108 Melissa Poole: Is there a balance for any of these scenarios that have been brought forth? 109