Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Excerpt of Minutes <br />Approved 10/1/08 <br />51 <br />52 Michael Harvey: County projects still have to receive site plan approval in accordance with Article Fourteen (14} of <br />53 the Zoning Ordinance but to be fair, the majority of the County projects don't have to go through a public approval <br />54 process. We still have to submit documentation to plannfig partners ff it in the Joint Planning Area Agreement to <br />55 Chapel Hill and Carrboro, ut1ities companies, DOT, the State and we would be issuing a Zoning Compliance Permit. <br />56 With regards to this, it would only be Environmental Health. <br />57 <br />58 Brian Crawford: I read Geoffs Letter. <br />59 <br />60 Michael Harvey: There was a question at the last meeting of if there could be an amendment to this that we require <br />61 the County to adf~ere to the design standards specifications and relevant information contained in the SUP. <br />62 <br />63 .Renee Price: That would just go through staff review. <br />64 <br />65 Judith Wegner. Wouldn't there be a staff review anyway if there were a proposal to put a facility there? <br />66 <br />67 Michael Harvey: Yes. <br />68 <br />69 Judith Wegner: What would be different if there were an ordinance change? <br />70 <br />71 Michae! Harvey: The concem was essentially there was specific design criteria referenced in Article 8 (Special Use <br />72 Provisions}. The concern is that if a private citizen is required to go through these steps, you should make the <br />73 County go through, even though they may not go through the SUP process. That may go beyond what local or state <br />74 would require as far as submittal requirements. <br />75 <br />76 Brian Crawford: But in same cases it may tie their hands in that it would not have to go through the 5UP process. <br />77 <br />78 Michael Harvey: It may have to supply the information. If this any other project than a County project and it <br />79 proposes a septic system of aver 3,000 then it would need to go through the SUP process. <br />80 <br />81 Lang Wright; I understand the County is high profile so if this fails i# will be much more at stake. <br />82 <br />83 Michael Harvey: It should not mafter who the applicant i5. The County Attorney has determined that there is a <br />84 procedural issue with the Courity issuing itsekf a SUP because of the potential ramifications of being able to justify fair <br />85 and impartial hearings. <br />86 <br />87 Larry Wright: It seems it is adding more to an agenda that is window dressing. <br />88 <br />89 Michael Harvey: I have been given an opinion and that is that I cannot hold up a County project for this reason but I <br />90 will not and cannot put my name of a paper authorizing a project because this is in the ordinance. <br />91 <br />92 Joel Knight: The County put this ordinance about the SUP requirement in the first place. it seems the County has <br />93 put their selves in a comer. I think the way ft should be done is that they may not have to get an SUP but they have <br />94 _ to do afi the steps an individual has to do in the same way. Any requirements placed on an individual citizen should <br />95 apply to the County. <br />96 <br />97 Brian Crawford: I agree, i second that. <br />98 <br />99 Judith Wegner. I have to disagree. The County is on the hook because the County has all the expertise in house on <br />100 all this stuff. The County reviewed these to be a private party is th be sure that there's nothing getting slid by the <br />32 <br />