Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
199 <br /> Approved 10.1.25 <br /> 1700 recommend denial. 3)To recommend approval that was specific conditions. Or 4)To <br /> 1701 recommend the Planning Board be given extended time to consider the matter. And then on 289, <br /> 1702 the Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing after the Planning Board either <br /> 1703 makes its recommendation or takes no action on the application within 30 days of its referral. So <br /> 1704 that would be 30 days from tonight. <br /> 1705 <br /> 1706 Lamar Proctor: What,that the County commissioners have to hear it? <br /> 1707 <br /> 1708 Cy Stober: Shall hold a public hearing. <br /> 1709 <br /> 1710 Lamar Proctor: County commissioners? <br /> 1711 <br /> 1712 Cy Stober: Yes. Right. Can act without a Planning Board recommendation according to the UDO. And the <br /> 1713 applicant has the right to seek that hearing. <br /> 1714 <br /> 1715 Jonah Garson: Wait, so my understanding of what you're saying is its Subsection 4 of that prior head was that we <br /> 1716 can get an extension of time and that can be the action we take, and then subsequent to having <br /> 1717 that extension, then we considering this,then that starts a 30-day clock. <br /> 1718 <br /> 1719 Cy Stober: That's accurate. <br /> 1720 <br /> 1721 Chris Johnston: The only thing I would say to that again is if we are asking the applicant to do something in those <br /> 1722 30 days,to provide us with additional information,that feels like a reason to extend. What it feels <br /> 1723 like we're doing is we are asking for a holding pattern and I'm not quite clear why. <br /> 1724 <br /> 1725 Beth Bronson: We didn't really ask for a holding pattern. I literally just made a comment for discussion about <br /> 1726 delaying if we can consider this more. <br /> 1727 <br /> 1728 Lamar Proctor: So procedural,what that would be is a motion to delaying or whatever the Option No.4, to request <br /> 1729 more time for Planning Board consideration that would need to be a second, and if it was a <br /> 1730 second, it would be voted on,and then if it passed,then we would move it to I guess,the October <br /> 1731 1 st session. <br /> 1732 <br /> 1733 Beth Bronson: No, again, I'm making this comment and I mean if Chris if you'd like to. <br /> 1734 <br /> 1735 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 /> 1736 something we're asking the applicant to do that we need additional time for them to do,what I'm <br /> 1737 concerned about is it sounds like people are saying I need more time to think about this and that's <br /> 1738 of what we've already been given in some ways. We've been given the packet. It was 86 pages <br /> 1739 of hydrological studies which, thank you, very deep wells. But we've had a fair amount of time to <br /> 1740 go over 270 pages. To ask these questions, to have these comments. It's a very similar <br /> 1741 application to what we've talked about prior, but I just want to make sure that if we extend this,that <br /> 1742 we have a good reason. <br /> 1743 <br /> 1744 Lamar Proctor: I think procedurally we have to make a motion so if there's no further discussion, I'll entertain a <br /> 1745 motion to adopt the statement of consistency in Attachment 6 or a motion to adopt the statement <br /> 1746 of inconsistency, or a motion to allow the board more time to consider the application. <br /> 1747 <br /> 1748 Beth Bronson: I mean, I wasn't necessarily finished, again, the reasoning for this would have more to do with the <br /> 1749 idea that the applicant could seek additional conditions or could think about additional conditions <br /> 1750 that address the concerns that have been brought up tonight. So additional considerations of a <br /> 1751 contingency plan for,should 49 lots not work, could there be a backup design where you lower the <br /> 1752 density of it. <br /> 1753 <br /> 1754 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair? <br />