Agenda - 02-29-2000-9e - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Ila Chair Barrows said that she likes what the staff is trying to do by having the Development Review Committee meeting. She likes the idea of trying to consolidate everything. However, she is still worried that when it gets to the Board of County Commissioners it can languish in a corner somewhere. Woods said they should give the County Commissioners a time limit to approve or reject the applications. He agrees with the other changes. He disagrees that the site -plan revision deadline is so quickly after the DRC meeting. He thinks it should be at least two weeks. Davis responded that he looked at doing that, but he would have to put the filing deadline so much further in advance. Woods emphasized that he felt the Planning Board should ask the Commissioners to accept or reject the applications in a timely fashion. Woods asked for clarification in the changes for the appeals process for minor subdivisions. Davis responded that now the staff determines whether it is a major or a minor subdivision. Early on, the staff proposed that the classification might be appealed by filing a major subdivision request. In discussions with the Attorney, the classification is really not up for debate. The appeal for the minor subdivision used to go to the Planning Board. As it stands right now, there is no appeal for the minor subdivision. Benedict said that right now if there is a minor subdivision and there is disagreement, the appeal goes to the Planning Board. With these changes, if there is a disagreement, then it automatically becomes a major subdivision, and the developer has to process it through a major subdivision. If there is any appeal, it goes to the County Commissioners. Woods noted that he felt the Planning Board should do the appeals and Katz expressed agreement with Woods. Katz said that he had a feeling that the Planning staff was not going to be presumptuous in telling the County Commissioners how they wanted to handle time limits and that is the reason for this recommendation. The County Commissioners themselves will set their own limit. He said it is the Commissioners' responsibility. Chair Barrows said that one of the complaints that she has heard from Commissioners is the planned development information that comes in that is so large. They have not been able to consider all of the implications in the time given, and this gives them a little more leeway with these types of things. Discussion ensued about the timeframe for the County Commissioners. Benedict said that originally there were three different actions that could be done: approve, approve with conditions, or deny. Now they are offering a table for more information. Strayhorn said that the table for more information is too open - ended. Benedict responded that the Planning Board could suggest a threshold for time limits. Woods said that the schedule changes on this ordinance are good. He does not like the minor subdivisions going to the County Commissioners. He thinks the repetitiveness of going to the Commissioners again and again should be resolved with another ordinance change. MOTION: McAdams moved to accept the changes except that the minor subdivision appeals will come .back to the Planning Board, and the County Commissioners will have 90 days to hear a proposal and will have 60 days after the report is heard to make a decision. Seconded by Woods. Chair Barrows asked for clarification. She asked if tabling for more information is still an option. She is still worried about a plan that comes in with a huge impact. Strayhorn asked if there could legally be a different set of timeframes for different types of projects. Benedict said yes. There is a direct relationship between the impact of a project based on its size. He said if the Planning Board goes through with this motion there is no problem with setting thresholds at a later time.