8_7_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9.4.24 Chris Johnston: I see, so it's not something that could be handled by staff, it has to come before the 472 planning board, and we have to take time to review it. 473 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, we can't administratively change the watershed boundary lines. 474 Chris Johnston Okay, thank you. 475 Marilyn Carter: Is there, given that we can anticipate some more of these to happen, is there a financial 476 impact to the county that we should be planning for in supporting these changes? 477 Patrick Mallett: I guess the financial impact would be the alternative, which is something that's not exactly 478 consistent with reality and therefore gives you a skewed image of the development 479 requirements. 480 Marilyn Carter: Got it, so the county doesn't have to expend funds to correct this line. 481 Patrick Mallett: No, this is just staff time to process them. We obviously have the time, we're busy, busy, 482 busy, but this is something that needs to be done and we're doing it. 483 Marilyn Carter: Got it. Thank you. 484 Statler Gilfillen: As I'm reading and listening to the discussion, this is a little bit of the bureaucratic issue, 485 kind of a Catch-22 where you're caught. Is there not a practical solution somehow that 486 can minimize the bureaucracy of this, since it's, what I'm hearing, this is relatively cut and 487 dry. It's going to be done, but the bureaucracy is requiring a lot of your time and then 488 coming before the boards, is there a way to simplify that process? 489 Patrick Mallett: Not without exhaustive time and expense on the county's end to essentially go out and 490 systematically review the boundaries for every critical and protected watershed, and that 491 would extremely expensive. 492 Statler Gilfillen: Would it not be possible to do something so that you can just do it internally? 493 Patrick Mallett: We don't have registered surveyors. 494 Whitney Watson: Patrick, I think part of the question is you mentioned that this is not something that can be 495 administratively corrected within the planning department? What would need to happen 496 for it to be possible for planning to make these changes administratively rather than 497 having to prepare a packet and bring it before the planning board? 498 Patrick Mallett: That too, would be a radical change, so we, the county, when we adopted our watersheds 499 and we adopted them as overlays, there would have to be some consideration to change 500 that status and make it something different. That too, could be time-consuming and 501 costly. You're talking about notifications county-wide for the most part. And in the end, 502 we'd have to derive some rationale and a firm feeling that that's the right way to do these, 503 so we know what we know at this point. 504 Perdita Holtz: I was just going to put in a couple of sentences that watershed protection overlay districts 505 would have to be removed from the zoning ordinance, the UDO, as overlay districts and 506 be a standalone ordinance that doesn't require the process of planning board review and 507 a public hearing and a BOCC decision in order to amend a boundary that has been 508 surveyed. It would a big effort to take those out of the UDO, but then it would be done 509 also. 510