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

Browse Search

25 DRAFT 165 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to expand the notice distance from 1,000 feet to 2,500 feet. 166 167 Lamar Proctor: Since staff is not having to do it, it is up to the applicant to do it. I move to expand because given the 168 rural nature of the much of Orange County that the vast expanse of spaces that I think the notice requirement, I would 169 move to amend the notice distance from 1,000 feet to 2,500 feet. 170 171 Charity Kirk: Is that appropriate in this? 172 173 Cy Stober: It will need to be reviewed by legal counsel. There are statutory requirements about public notification within 174 160D and about consistency and how we notify but as Tyler presented, NIMs are voluntary and are not governed by 175 statute in nearly the same way a public hearing or Planning Board meeting is. That will need to be run by them but we 176 can communicate and if we need to come back to the Planning Board with that with further commentary we will. 177 Otherwise it would be added to the Planning Board's recommendation and presented to the BOCC as such. 178 179 Randy Marshall: I think we need a broader discussion of that and not just have that here. Again, I would like to have a 180 scale and not a flat square footage area. 181 182 Cy Stober: If I may, I do have a concern about having different public notification requirement for Neighborhood 183 Information Meetings versus Public Hearings and Planning Board meetings and essentially the different threshold being 184 applied for public notification but really the only qualitative difference is whether its governed by statute or not. It does 185 give me pause, I do have concerns about the legal review and I think it is deeper water than it may first seem. I am 186 happy if directed by the Planning Board this evening to discuss it with legal,to pursue the amendment further and have 187 the staff opinion for presentation to the Planning Board if that is the wish of the Board. 188 189 Adam Beeman: I think it needs discussed further at a different meeting because I'd like to discuss the costs that you are 190 going to put on the applicant now by more than doubling his area that he has to reach out to. 191 192 Charity Kirk: Can we separate it out from this? 193 194 Cy Stober: It already is—Mr. Proctor's amendment is separate from the text amendment. 195 196 Charity Kirk: Are we ready to approve this and then can we ask for you to review Mr. Proctor's amendment. 197 198 Cy Stober: He has made a motion, if there is a second or if the motion dies. 199 200 Charity Kirk: But that's separate from this? 201 202 Cy Stober: Yes. 203 204 Lamar Proctor: I did make the motion so I can either withdraw it or no one can second it. 205 206 Charity Kirk I would make a motion to discuss at a future date to increase the mailing radius. 207 208 Lamar Proctor: I stand by my proposition that 1,000 feet is woefully inadequate. I did not consider Cy's statement that it 209 would create a incongruence between statutory, mandated notice requirements and voluntary notice requirements and 1 210 do think that is going to give somebody a headache. I do think that this is an issue so my concern is that anything that 211 we discuss that isn't a change to the LIDO at this point is going to be months, maybe years before the opportunity comes 212 to modify the LIDO. 213 214 Cy Stober: If you give us a deadline,we would have to report back to you by a certain date. I would ask that it not be 215 over the holidays or for the January meeting but we would come back to you at a future Planning Board date after we 216 have discussed it with the County Attorney's Office and have a brief information discussion item perhaps on an agenda 217 without a lot of other particularly public hearing matters or that we have enough time to discuss it in depth. 218 219 Randy Marshall: I propose that we take advantage of your offer and that you bring it back to us when you are ready.