Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
39 <br /> 1807 Cy Stober: Yes. Right. Can act without a Planning Board recommendation according to the UDO. And the <br /> 1808 applicant has the right to seek that hearing. <br /> 1809 <br /> 1810 Jonah Garson: Wait, so my understanding of what you're saying is its Subsection 4 of that prior head was that we <br /> 1811 can get an extension of time and that can be the action we take, and then subsequent to having <br /> 1812 that extension, then we considering this,then that starts a 30-day clock. <br /> 1813 <br /> 1814 Cy Stober: That's accurate. <br /> 1815 <br /> 1816 Chris Johnston: The only thing I would say to that again is if we are asking the applicant to do something in those <br /> 1817 30 days,to provide us with additional information, that feels like a reason to extend. What it feels <br /> 1818 like we're doing is we are asking for a holding pattern and I'm not quite clear why. <br /> 1819 <br /> 1820 Beth Bronson: We didn't really ask for a holding pattern. I literally just made a comment for discussion about <br /> 1821 delaying if we can consider this more. <br /> 1822 <br /> 1823 Lamar Proctor: So procedural,what that would be is a motion to delaying or whatever the Option No.4,to request <br /> 1824 more time for Planning Board consideration that would need to be a second, and if it was a <br /> 1825 second, it would be voted on,and then if it passed, then we would move it to I guess, the October <br /> 1826 1 st session. <br /> 1827 <br /> 1828 Beth Bronson: No, again, I'm making this comment and I mean if Chris if you'd like to. <br /> 1829 <br /> 1830 Chris Johnston: No, I don't have a motion to make it come to that. I'm simply saying that I personally, if we have <br /> 1831 something we're asking the applicant to do that we need additional time for them to do,what I'm <br /> 1832 concerned about is it sounds like people are saying I need more time to think about this and that's <br /> 1833 of what we've already been given in some ways. We've been given the packet. It was 86 pages <br /> 1834 of hydrological studies which,thank you,very deep wells. But we've had a fair amount of time to <br /> 1835 go over 270 pages.To ask these questions, to have these comments. It's a very similar <br /> 1836 application to what we've talked about prior, but I just want to make sure that if we extend this, that <br /> 1837 we have a good reason. <br /> 1838 <br /> 1839 Lamar Proctor: I think procedurally we have to make a motion so if there's no further discussion, I'll entertain a <br /> 1840 motion to adopt the statement of consistency in Attachment 6 or a motion to adopt the statement <br /> 1841 of inconsistency, or a motion to allow the board more time to consider the application. <br /> 1842 <br /> 1843 Beth Bronson: I mean, I wasn't necessarily finished, again,the reasoning for this would have more to do with the <br /> 1844 idea that the applicant could seek additional conditions or could think about additional conditions <br /> 1845 that address the concerns that have been brought up tonight. So additional considerations of a <br /> 1846 contingency plan for,should 49 lots not work, could there be a backup design where you lower the <br /> 1847 density of it. <br /> 1848 <br /> 1849 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair? <br /> 1850 <br /> 1851 Lamar Proctor: Yes. <br /> 1852 <br /> 1853 Cy Stober: Ms. Bronson, that would be a new application. <br /> 1854 <br /> 1855 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I know. <br /> 1856 <br /> 1857 Cy Stober: No,that would have to start over. <br /> 1858 <br /> 1859 Beth Bronson: Well, I would not recommend that, I guess. <br /> 1860 <br />