Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
42 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 1976 Taylor Perschau: In most cases, the concerned neighbor is going to find the planner regardless. I will say I have not <br /> 1977 heard any ire from subdivision applicants about NIMs in particular. <br /> 1978 <br /> 1979 Chris Johnston: Okay. <br /> 1980 <br /> 1981 Beth Bronson: To Charity's point, not being required to do a NIM might create less barriers for them to be willing <br /> 1982 to present their plans to the public. Right? Like I think that having any level of here is their <br /> 1983 concept plan or preliminary plat, it is important that they have enough vested interest or enough <br /> 1984 skin in the game, and they believe in it enough to present it to who will be their neighbors. <br /> 1985 <br /> 1986 Chris Johnston: Sure. <br /> 1987 <br /> 1988 Beth Bronson: Right? And,you know, NIMs are, these do become public information. Is that correct? Like with <br /> 1989 the application? So is it still publicly available for anybody to see or? <br /> 1990 <br /> 1991 Cy Stober: No. For ADA compliance,we are going to have to all that information down off their website. <br /> 1992 <br /> 1993 Chris Johnston: Next year. <br /> 1994 <br /> 1995 Cy Stober: But who will,well, no. The fundamental information about who the applicant is,where the <br /> 1996 property is,what the subdivision is, how many lots will be created and access to a lot of the, the <br /> 1997 information about where they are in the process will still all be available, but the documents we <br /> 1998 cannot provide any longer. <br /> 1999 <br /> 2000 Beth Bronson: I was going to say, the documents are no longer uploaded to the permit portal publicly. <br /> 2001 <br /> 2002 Cy Stober: If they are, if they are, it is going to end soon. <br /> 2003 <br /> 2004 Beth Bronson: They are not. <br /> 2005 <br /> 2006 Cy Stober: Okay, great. That makes me feel better because that is a federal compliance requirement. <br /> 2007 <br /> 2008 Beth Bronson: Good to know. <br /> 2009 <br /> 2010 Chris Johnston: So bringing it back to my question though, right,we are making a decision in this, in this update as <br /> 2011 to which of these meeting venues to keep, and we have decided that the NIM is the thing to keep <br /> 2012 because it is informal, and it provides an avenue for the planners through the tip sheet or <br /> 2013 whatever the case may be, but again, I am, I am confused as to why this meeting is not that as <br /> 2014 well. What is the difference of this meeting versus that meeting other than the informality? <br /> 2015 <br /> 2016 Taylor Perschau: I think they are the same, and I would say that I was in Cy's camp originally where I would have <br /> 2017 recommended removal but to the concern of removing information being publicly accessible, I do <br /> 2018 not have opposition to maintain the NIM. There is a very similar dynamic. <br /> 2019 <br /> 2020 Chris Johnston: Yes. <br /> 2021 <br /> 2022 Taylor Perschau: Yes,where the neighbors or the planning board cannot necessarily, cannot change the ordinance <br /> 2023 language. <br /> 2024 <br /> 2025 Chris Johnston: Right. <br /> 2026 <br /> 2027 Taylor Perschau: Nor can they apply it, as they are not the regulator. <br /> 2028 <br /> 2029 Chris Johnston: Right. <br /> 2030 <br />