Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2000-020 Text Amendments to Subdivision Requlations and Zoning Ordinance 1 O �� - ZOoU - d Zo ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 14, 2000 Agenda Abstract Item L7' SUBJECT: Text Amendments to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Minutes, August 23, 1999 Public Hearing Robert P. Davis, Planner III (Ext. 2580) Minutes, November 4, 1999 Planning Board Meeting Proposed Ordinance, Original TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Proposed Ordinance from Planning Board Chapel Hill 967-9251 Proposed Ordinance from Administration Hillsborough 245-2575 Calendar of Meetings Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 PURPOSE: To make a decision regarding proposed Text Amendments. BACKGROUND: Request Revise the time limitation sections of the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. Amend the appeal procedures for Minor Subdivisions. Applicability: Subdivision Regulations: These regulations shall govern each and every subdivision or re-subdivision of land within Orange County outside the subdivision jurisdiction of any incorporated municipality in the County. Zoning Ordinance: The entirety of Orange County lying outside of the municipalities therein and their extra-territorial jurisdictions, if any. Existing Text and Proposed Changes: See attached document for existing text and proposed changes. Proposed Changes: • Revises time constraints in both the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. • Amend the appeal procedures for Minor Subdivisions. G:/robert/textamed.doc/Mar00/rpd - Process, Schedule and Action • First Action: Public Hearing • Joint Public Hearing on August 23, 1999 • Opposition from surveyors and others involved in the development process • Opposition from citizens regarding potential governmental delays in the approval process • Second Action: Ordinance Review Committee met on October 21, 1999 Recommended that the draft proposals go to Planning Board with some type of time constraint on the process and with a calendar of meeting dates prepared each year for the following year. • Third Action: Planning Board heard proposals on November 4, 1999 Planning Board recommended approval with the following changes to the proposed ordinance: • Leave the appeal process as the ordinance now reads with minor subdivision appeals going to the Planning Board. • Allow Staff a one-month deferral after the application is accepted to resolve outstanding issues. • Allow Planning Board a one-meeting deferral on all applications to resolve issues and make a recommendation. If no recommendation by Planning Board within two meetings the application would go to the County Commissioners with the Planning Board minutes and Planning Staff • Board of County Commissioners to have 90 days to hear an application and 60 days to make a • The Commissioners should consider allowing additional time for major projects. • Fourth Action: County Commissioners to consider Amendments. Planning Sta Approval of the Public Hearing Ordinance eliminating all time limits and appeals. (ORDINANCE HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING) Planning Board: Approval of the Planning Board proposed ordinance with time limits and appeal of minor subdivisions to the Planning Board. (PLANNING BOARD Administration: Approval of the Administration Ordinance incorporating elements of both Planning Staff and Planning Board recommendations. | NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, August 23, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose Of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS 1. Z-02-99 Johnny Cates Johnny C. Cates requests that a 2.8 acre (121,968 SF) portion of his 5.1 acre property at 3102 West Ten* Road, Cheeks Township, be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, s ilvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts. . Permitted uses within the AS District that are not permitted in the AR District, are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment Sales, Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is approximately-2,200 feet east of Mt. Willing Road interchange with 1-40/85 and is referenced-in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification number 9854-14-8385. 2. 2-03-99 Ernie*McBroom 6nie McBroom requests that his 10.01 acre (436,036 SF) parcel in Cedar Grove Township be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residenfial uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts. Permitted uses within the AS District that are not permitted in the AR District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment Sales, Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is located on the south side of Sawmill Road West (SR 1545) approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3*,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road, SR 1507) and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification number 9868-43-4251. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. Orange County Planning Staff and NC Child Care Commission propose amendments to Article 4, Section 4.3 (Permitted Use Table), Article 6, Section 6.27 (Large Day Care Homes), Article 8, Section 8.8.16 (Day Care Facility), and Article 22 (Definitions) that change language in ordinance provisions for child care facilities to .conform with language in North Carolina General Statutes regarding licensing provisions for child care facilities. g: 11nco1n\0899Phad.doc\8-4-99Xk1 4 - Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to revise the time constraints in Article 2 (The Board of County Commissioners and its Administrative Mechanisms), Article 3 (Establishment of Zoning Districts and Atlas), Article 6.29.3 (Development Standards for Economic Development Districts), Article 8 (Special Uses), and Article 20 (Amendments). Proposed amendments will: • Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review from all applicable agencies prior to completing reports to boards; • Provide adequate time for board review of projects; and • Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations if processing time cannot be met. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to revise the time constraints in Section III (Application and Approval Procedures), Section IV-13-7 (Sites for Public Use), and Section VII-D-4 (Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing). Proposed amendments will: • Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review from all applicable agencies prior to completing reports to boards; • Provide adequate time for board review of projects; and • Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations if processing time cannot be met. • Revise process for appeal of staff decisions concerning subdivision classification (minor vs major) and approval of minor subdivisions. 2. Orange County Planning Board and planning staff propose amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section IV-13-10 Flexible Development: a. to amend D-1 Estate Lot Option to 1. reduce minimum lot size from 4.0 acres to 3.0 acres with average lot size of 3.5 acres; 2. provide a 150 ft. buffer along state maintained roads adjacent to subdivision boundaries; 3. restrict lot access to internal subdivision roads; and b. to amend D.3 Cluster Option to clarify that any transfer of density within a cluster development will not result in a greater density within any specific zoning district than the average density allowed by zoning restrictions within that specific district including overlay districts (eg. flexible development proposals spanning the critical area (CA) and the balance (P" of a protected watershed cannot shift density from a higher density zoning (P" to a lower density zoning (CA)). All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the 'close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. g:\kllncoln\0899phad.doc\8-4-991kI 5 1 Manager Link reiterated that day care centers are very highly regulated by the 2 state. 3 Planning Board Member Barry Katz sought clarification of some language that had 4 been struck from the amendments. 5 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to 6 refer the proposed zoning text amendments for child care facilities to the Planning Board for 7 recommendations to be.returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than November 3, 8 1999. 9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 10 11 b. Amendments Related to Time Constraints for Development Review and 12 Procedural Changes 13 (1) Article 1, General Provisions; •14 (2) Article 2, Section 2.3.3.7, Board of Adjustment Administration; 15 (3) Article 3, Establishing of Zoning Districts and Atlas, Section 3.5, 16 Maintenance 17 Responsibility; 18 (4) Article 6, Section 6.29.3, Development Standards for Economic 19 Development 20 Districts, E Development Review Meeting; 21 (5) Article 8, Special Uses 22 (a) Section 8.4.3, Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and 23 Recommendation; 24 (b) Section 8.4.4, Recommendation Submitted to Planning Board or 25 Board of Adjustment; 26 (c) Section 8.4.6, Planning Board Action on Class A Special Use 27 Permits; 28 (d) Section 8.5, Action Subsequent to the Board Action; 29 (6) Article 20 Amendments 30 (a) Section 20.3.3, Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and 31 Recommendation; 32 (b) Section 20.4, Referral of Amendment Application to Planning 33 Board; 34 (c) Section 20.7.2, Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing. 35 36 3. Orange County Subdivision Regulation Text Amendments 37 Planning Director Craig Benedict made introductory remarks. Planner Robert Davis made 38 the presentation of the proposed text amendments. 39 a. Amendment Related to Time Constraints for Development Review and 40 Procedural Changes 41 (1) Section 1, Purpose, Authority, Jurisdiction; 42 (2) Section III, Application and Approval Procedures; 43 (a) Section III-B-1 (Classification of Subdivisions)determination of 44 Classification; 45 (b) Section III-C-1 (Approval Procedures for Minor Subdivisions) 46 Concept Plan Submission; 47 (c) Section III-C-3, Review and Approval Procedures; 48 (d) Section 111-C-5, Appeal Procedures; 49 (e) Section III-D-1.d (Approval Procedures for Major Subdivisions) 50 Neighborhood Information Meeting; 51 (f) Section III-D-1-e, Planning Department�Review'Procedures; 52 (g) Section III-D-1-f, Planning Board Review and Approval G 1 Procedures; (h) Section 111-D-1-g, Action Subsequent to Approval'; 2 0) Section III-D-1-h, Appeal Procedures; 3 Section III-D-2-d (Concept Plan Approval in the Rural Buffer) 4 Planning Department Review Procedures; 5 (k) Section III-D-2-c, Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures; 6 (1) Section I Il-D-2-d, Action Subsequent to Approval; 7 (m) Section III-D-2-e, Appeal Procedures; 8 (n) Section III-D-3-b (Preliminary Plat Approval) Planning Department 9 Review Procedures; 10 (o) Section III-D-3-c, Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures; 11 (p) Section I I I-D-3-d, Board of Commissioners Review and Approval 12 Procedures; 13 (q) Section III-D-4-b (Final Plat Approval) Review and Approval 14 Procedures; '15 (r) Section III-D-5, Appeal Procedures; 16 (3) Section VII-D-4 (Legal Status Provisions)Amendment Procedures, 17 Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing. 18 (4) Staff Presentations: 19 Planning Director Craig Benedict made introductory remarks. 20 Planner Robert Davis made the presentation of the proposed text amendments. The objectives of the 21 proposed review time changes were presented as benefits each entity: 23 Board of County Commlssidners'Objeqtives: 25 -ANALYSIS-Allows thorough analysis of proposals without default approvals. 26 - CERTAIN MINOR SUBDIVISIONS - Discourages developers from seeking.minor subdivision approval 27 in order to avoid major subdivision requirements. 28 - LESS CONTROVERSY- Increases probability that recommendations will reach Commissioners 29 without major controversy. 31 Planning Board Objectives: 33 - IMPROVES Planing Board/County Commissioners 34 - CONSENSUS - Eliminates recommendations going to Board of Commissioners without action or 35 conditions. 36 -APPEALS-Specifies time limitations for filing appeals of Planning Department decisions to Board of 37 Adjustments. 39 Staff Objectives: 41 - COORDINATION -Allows all affected agencies sufficient time to review and work with applicants to 42 reach agreement on specific topics. 43 - DEFAULT APPROVALS - Eliminates default approvals on subdivisions where agencies have yet to 44 reach accord with developer on specific topics. 45 - DEADLINES - Sets deadline for Informational Meetings in order to allow sufficient time to prepare a 46 concise staff report on proposals. 47 - MINOR VS MAJOR-Amends classification process to require major subdivision review in cases of 48 disagreement between staff and developers. 49 County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill made comments about the preliminary 50 plat. Planner Davis continued, speaking as to the concept of appeal. Attorney Gledhill stated there was 51 no time limitation for appeal. C 52 (5) Questions from the Board of County Commissioners: 7 1 Commissioner Jacobs asked Planner Davis to discuss the difference in 2 requirements between minor and major subdivisions. Planner Davis explained the differences. Chair 3 Gordon stated that she believed staff would make the decision about minor or major subdivisions. Chair 4 Gordon stated that a change had occurred in the 2-year rule and Planning Director Benedict concurred. 5 There is not an accumulative rule. 6 Commissioner Jacobs expressed his belief that deleting many of these 7 time limits is a good action. He asked questions of Planning Director Benedict,which were addressed. 8 Planning Board Member Barry Katz made reference to the website run by 9 the Town of Cary, North Carolina, and stated that the Cary website includes a timellne for development. 10 Member Katz suggested Orange County might want to develop and fumish similar information. 11 Planning Board Member Robert Strayhorn expressed the importance of 12 informing the public as to the duration of time necessary to have action on an item taken by the Planning 13 Department. Member Strayhorn also wanted to stress the importance of minor subdivisions to rural .14 Orange County. 15 (6) Audience Comments: 16 Emily Cameron distributed a prepared statement that addressed her 17 support for staying within the timeframes. Ms. Cameron also had concerns about the actual text of the 18 amendments if the Board of County Commissioners approves them. Commissioner Brown asked Ms. 19 Cameron if there was ever a concept plan that was denied. Ms. Cameron stated that the majority of the 20 time, they could work it out with the developer. 21 Planning Board Member Lynn Holtkamp made a statem*ent about limiting 22 the timeframes. Ms. Cameron stated the timeframe for a preliminary plan was 85 days. Upon review of 23 the concept plan, any concerns should immediately be addressed with the developer for quick resolution. 24 Ms. Cameron reiterated that she does not feel any additional time is necessary. 25 Vic Knight, of Miller Road, stated that he has many concerns about the 26 elimination of timeframes. While he agreed with extending the 3-day appeal timelines, he believes those 27 within Orange County who have rural developments represent a large portion of the population, and 28 would see these open-ended timeframes as problems. Mr. Knight does not want to have time limits 29 eliminated. 30 Paul Kempa,4726 Green Riley Road, made reference to Planning Board 31 Member Robert Strayhorn's comments about keeping the process for developing a minor subdivision 32 separate from the one for major subdivisions. Mr. Kempa believes it is important to leave the dates in 33 the ordinance. 34 Steve Yuhasz, 3710 St. Mary's Road, is a land surveyor and expressed his 35 belief that elimination of time limits is not a good idea and urged the Board of County Commissioners not 36 to do so. He stated that if all timeframes are eliminated, then accountability at the staff level is also 37 eliminated. Mr. Yuhasz stated that knowing that there is an end to the process encourages people to go 38 into the process. If the ordinance is changed, there is no appeal of anything to the Planning Board or the 39 Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Yuhasz believes that to eliminate any kind of appeal process from 40 the ordinance is a mistake. Mr. Yuhasz also stated that it would be wrong to force urban rules on a rural 41 area, and that the only process changes between minor and major subdivisions is procedural. Mr. 42 Yuhasz also stated that there had been no suggestion that staff meet with developers before making 43 changes to the process, instead of making the developers part of the changes that are proposed. Mr. 44 Yuhasz again stated the need for an appeal mechanism to be built into the system. 45 Mark O'Neal, of Pickett Sprouse Real Estate, stated that he supports the 46 timelines. Mr. O'Neal stated that in Durham County, North Carolina, there is a development review 47 board that meets once a week. 48 John Hartwell, of Lawrence Road, stated that he does not like the proposal 49 because it is not good government in that there are safeguards built into the ordinance. If there is a need 50 to change a time, then specifically address that change. Mr. Hartwell stated that there was a logic that 51 led to the initial adoption of the 2-year concept plan. Mr. Hartwell stated he would like to see the abuses 52 remedied, but not by eliminating the timelines within the ordinance. 8 1 Scott Radway stated that he was in favor of the certainty of time limits for 2 the process. Mr. Radway believes that there needs to be accountability at the staff level, and that the 3 affected citizens are the ones most in need of a date-certain process. Mr. Radway stated that citizens 4 deserve predictability by making the process date-specific, even if some dates are shortened while other 5 dates are lengthened. 6 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to 7 refer the proposed text amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance to the 8 Planning Board for recommendations to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner 9 than November 3, 1999. 10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 11 12 b. Section IV-13-10, Flexible Development 13 (1) Section D, Development Standards ,14 (a) D.1, Estate Lot Option; 15 (b) D.3, Cluster Option. 16 (2) Staff Presentations: 17 Planning Director Craig presented this text amendment proposal 18 Benedict. (3) Questions from the Board of County Commissioners or 19 Planning Board -None. 20 (4) Audience Comments: 21 Steve Yuhasz, 3710 St. Mary's Road, sought clarification of the 22 amendment. 23 Scott Radway questioned the 150 feet requirement and if this was within 24 the estate lot option only or others options. Planning Director Craig Benedict addressed his concerns. 25 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown,that 26 the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned to the 27 Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 7, 1999. 28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. . 29 30 This ends the Joint Quarterly Public Hearing with the Planning Board. Chair Gordon of the Board of 31 County Commissioners will chair all remaining items on the agenda. 32 33 D. RE-PORTS PRESENTED BY COUNTY MANAGER JOHN LINK 34 1. Changes to Commissioners' Meeting Schedule, 35 The purpose of this item is to consider several changes or additions to the Board of 36 County Commissioners' approved meeting schedule as follows: 37 (a) September 7, 1999: The consulting engineering firm will present its report 38 concerning the evaluation of proposed construction and demolition (C&D) landfill sites. Staff 39 recommends that the regular Commissioners meeting scheduled for 7:30prn at the F. Gordon Baffle 40 Courtroom be moved to the District Courtroom on the second floor of the Courthouse. The second floor 41 courtroom is bigger and more likely to accommodate the large audience that may want to attend that 42 meeting. 43 (b) September 16, 1999: The Commissioners may wish to schedule a public 44 hearing to receive public comment on the proposed C&D sites. The meeting is also recommended to be 45 conducted at 7:30pm in the second floor courtroom at the Orange County Courthouse in Hillsborough. 46 The Board may also wish to invite the participation in this public hearing by the municipal governing 47 boards. 48 (c) September 29, 1999: The North Carolina Administrative Code requires 49 that before final approval is given to a municipal solid waste landfill, the local government where the 50 landfill is located "shall hold at least one public meeting to inform the community of the proposed waste 51 management activities". The local government must further"provide a public notice of the meeting at 52 least 30 days prior to the meeting". While extensive public information about the C&D activities that are been regulatory 53 currently being considered has already b n provided, in order to meet the specific regulat notice PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 4,1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Barrows(Chair),Nicole Gooding-Ray,Barry Katz,Howard McAdams,Jr., Rachel Preston,James K.Selkirk,Bob Strayhorn,Runyon Woods MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Allison,Lynne Holtkamp and Onie Lea all excused. STAFF PRESENT: Craig N.Benedict(Planning Director),Karen Lincoln,Robert Davis,and Joanna Bradshaw. AGENDA ITEM#2: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Chair Barrows introduced two new Board members,Nicole Gooding-Ray from Bingham Township and Rachel Preston from Eno Township. AGENDA ITEM#3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 6, 1999 Gooding-Ray noted on page 13 that her name was spelled incorrectly. Chair Barrows made reference to page 10,noting that clarification was needed in the motion made by Bob Strayhom to approve the concept plan for Richmond Hills subdivision,indicating how the Board wanted the language to be changed. Strayhom said that he intended that the decision be up to the applicant as to whether they want to go through a homeowner's association or through the County. It would not be mandated from the staff. The following motion was acceptable to Strayhom and the Board: Strayhom moved that the Board accept the staff s recommendation to approve the Concept Plan for Richmond Hills Subdivision,with the change of language in item#16 to read that dedication to a Homeowners Association or Orange County should be the decision of the applicant. Chair Barrows made reference to the bottom of page 12,and said that it should say,"the Board is to pass this on to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for their decision,"since they do not know if the County Commissioners are going to approve anything. MOTION: Katz moved approval of the October 6, 1999 minutes with corrections. Seconded by Strayhom. VOTE: Unanimous AGENDA ITEM#4: COMMISSIONERS' MEETINGS ACTION REPORTS Benedict explained that work is in process to get information on Board of Commissioners' actions/decisions more easily and quickly. AGENDA ITEM#5: PUBLIC CHARGE AGENDA ITEM#6: CHAIR COMMENTS Chair.Bar-rows reiterated that the Planning Board members have a responsibility to come to the meeting. If for some reason someone cannot attend,they have the responsibility to call and let Joanna Bradshaw know. A certain amount of unexcused absences are grounds for dismissal. AGENDA ITEM#7: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS a. Board of Adjustment 10 VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM#9: MATTERS HEARD AT AUGUST 23,1999 PUBLIC HEARING a. Text Amendments Regarding Time Constraints for Development Review and Other Procedural Changes (1) Amendments to Orange County Zoning Ordinance (2) Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations Presentation by Robert Davis. A copy of the abstract information and proposed text amendments are attachments to these minutes on pages Davis said this item is still in public hearing. This item is back to the Planning Board fora recommendation on some of the revisions of the time limits and the appeal process in the subdivision and zoning ordinances. At the public hearing,there was quite a bit of opposition from certain members of the development community with regard to eliminating any time limits without any time outside parameters for hearing cases. It was recommended earlier to put in some language that would address any concern on this,but there was still some opposition to removing time limit constraints from the ordinance. The staff`s comments have been incorporated into the ordinance. In this proposal the Planning Board hears a case one time and a decision must be made the next time or it would go to the Commissioners with staff's recommendation.There were no constraints placed on the time limits at the staff level. He made reference to a calendar in the agenda packet. They have put both the Concept and the Preliminary on that calendar,and the neighborhood information meeting would only be heard at the Concept level. In each column they have placed the Planning Board date and then the target dates of all of the events that would happen leading up to that Planning Board date. A copy of the referenced calendar is an attachment to these minutes on page Benedict reviewed the calendar. Within this timeframe,there are different actions that have to be done. First of all, the completeness of the application is checked. Secondly,there is a Concept Plan neighborhood information meeting to meet with the public and notices must be sent out. The Development Review Committee(DRC)meeting is something they are making a little more important in the process. The DRC is made up of staff,the Fire Marshall, someone from the Building Department,and could include the Department of Transportation. During discussions with a few of the developer agents and the surveyors,they said that they would like to be plugged into the process so that they can hear the staff comments. The staff's intent is to meet the same day of the DRC meeting with the developer right afterwards,so there would be a scheduled time for every development application that comes in. After these meetings,if there are revisions,there is limited time for the developer to come back with the revisions. The revisions are rechecked and the packet is then mailed to the Planning Board. He said that the important thing is that they get all the comments from the various agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers or the Department of Natural Resources. He noted a change in the schedule. At this time,there are numerous submittal periods for applications. In this ordinance,they have been put into one submittal period and then it is all tracked to a certain meeting. This will be easier for the staff. Davis said that they are bringing up for the Planning Board's consideration to allow for staff a one meeting deferral on all cases. Benedict said there are no timeframes for staff in the way the original proposed ordinance is written now, and that is how it was brought to public hearing. They are suggesting putting a restriction on the staff to get the item to the Planning Board in the first timeframe or within the next meeting. Davis said there are no time limits on the applicant after they file a case. Another change in the ordinance is that they are giving a two-year lag between the Concept and Preliminary Plans;now it is only one year. He said that they are proposing no time changes for the Board of Adjustment. Chair Barrows pointed out page 64 where it talks about stop work orders. Previously it said,"within 15 days,"and now it is going to say,"at its next regularly scheduled meeting." She is concerned about saying that the stop work order will be done at no specified time. She stated that the Board of Adjustment does not meet every month. (If there is no Board of Adjustment business,the Board does not meet.) Some work could be going on between the i1 Board of Adjustment meetings that they do not know about. Davis said that this meant the next time the Board of Adjustment is supposed to meet,not when they actually do meet. Davis said the recommendation would be required to go the Commissioners within two meetings,which is roughly 60 days. The item is to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners within 90 days,and then there are no time limits for approval or denial by the BOCC. This recommendation is going to the BOCC. The Commissioners can put parameters around their time periods. Benedict asked Davis if he had researched other jurisdictions to find out their time limits on subdivisions. Davis responded that there are no time limitations on subdivisions in Raleigh. In High Point,if a text amendment is not heard, it is denied. There are two meeting time limits in Forsyth County. Gooding-Ray asked for an explanation for the changes in procedures. Benedict said there are a variety of code provisions for when development proposals have to be acted upon. In the current ordinance,there is a provision that says if the Planning Board does not act on something within their time limit,there is an approval without any conditions. The Commissioners feel uncomfortable with a rush to judgement on deciding on development applications. In the goal-setting sessions,the Commissioners asked the Planning staff to look at the time limits to see if there could be more time for a decision. Strayhorn said that he is pleasantly surprised to see this proposal, and he thinks it is much more acceptable. He asked if this proposal would go to the Commissioners or would there have to be another public hearing. Benedict responded that this proposal would go to the Commissioners after the Planning Board's recommendation. At the public hearing,the proposal had no time constraints. This proposal is within the parameters of the discussion at the public hearing. Srayhorn said that what was heard at the public hearing was changes in the process of th e ordinance,which were very unpopular. He feels the staff has addressed those problems. He stated that he still believes no changes are necessary. He said that it seems like this is just another set of changes that the involved staff would have to look at again. Benedict responded that any recommendations that come out of this Board tonight would be sent out to approximately 30 developers and developer agents that have participated in the public hearing process. There has been one informational meeting with the agents of surveyor firms and developer agents. Gooding-Ray asked if the meeting was deferred by the staff,does the Planning Board still have two meetings to decide. Benedict responded that the Planning Board would still have two meetings. Chair Barrows made reference to page 67,in the"Accept/Reject by"column,and said that if applicants come in and have deficiencies in what they are presenting,then the staff would look at that and tell them what else they need to do. If there were no deficiencies the applicant can come to the January 5`h meeting and be heard,regardless of what goes on in the steps down below. She asked for clarification about this. Davis responded that it had to be worded a different way. If the Planning Board decides to hear it on January 5`s,they will;if not,then it would be deferred for one month. Woods said that in this scenario the developer would have to go with the one-month deferral because the developer can not give the staff everything they ask for within the five or six days. Davis responded that the plus side of this scenario is that rather than take a chance of losing a month once they are in the process,developers will discuss the projects with staff prior to submission of an application. Chair Barrows asked if,with this scenario,someone came in for an"accept/reject"at the end of November,and the Planning staff put them off one meeting,would they be put off until February 2"d,which is a little over 60 days. She asked what the scenario is now,without the revisions. Davis responded that now it is only put off 30 days. Based on the filing,they are really only adding about two weeks extra to the submittal. Benedict said that part of the process here is that there has been a lot of disagreement between the applications that have come in and staff recommendations. Accordingly,there is a lot of discussion at the Planning Board and a lot of discussion at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. He hopes that the dialogue would start earlier so that they are not so far apart when they get to this meeting. 11a Chair Barrows said that she likes what the staff is tying 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 comer 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. Strayhom 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. Strayhom asked if there could legally be a different set of timefi-ames 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. 11b Selkirk said that some of these things might be self-limiting. Chair Barrows said she would feel much better having it all decided tonight. She would like to reword it to be more inclusive so that it does not feel so fragmented. Benedict said he has not been given any timeframes. He will ask the Attorney whether the threshold impact has to go to another public hearing. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 opposed—Barrows felt it was too piecemeal,she would rather see it come together as a whole package. Katz said he feels they have addressed the immediate issues. He is comfortable with the changes. AGENDA ITEM#10: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS Benedict mentioned that the County Commissioners are considering telecasting their meetings. The Commissioners have indirectly asked if the Planning Board would have any interest in doing this. Also,since there are two new members on the Planning Board,he wants to put together an informational meeting to go through the subdivision and zoning ordinances. He will let all the Planning Board members know when this meeting will be. He distributed copies of the definitions of primary and secondary open space. AGENDA ITEM#11: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Monthly Reports(distributed at meeting) b. Planning Calendar(distributed at meeting) The next meeting is December 1, 1999. AGENDA ITEM#12: ADJOURNMENT Therg was a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Prepa y µpproved By r -:� Cr Date 12 Original Ordinance proposed at Public Bearing Text Amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Regarding Time Limitations Sii4ee text indicates deletions. Bold text indicates proposed changes. Proposed New Language: Amend CONTENTS by re-writing Section I to read Purpose, Authority, Jurisdiction, Private Property Rights and Applications to be Processed Expeditiously and inserting a new section t -- E. Applications to be Processed Expeditiously on page 2 of the Subdivision Regulations for Orange County. NC to read as follows: Recognizing that inordinate delays in acting upon appeals or applications may Impose unnecessary costs on the appellant or applicant, the county shall make every reasonable effort to process appeals and permit applications as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the need to ensure that all development conforms to the requirements of this chapter. (page 9—Subdivision Regulations) Determination of Classification Section 111-8-1 (fifth paragraph) the subdiyisieA. All sweh appeals must be FRade, t the PlanniRg'DepaFkneRt. The Planning Department's determination of classification maybe appealed by filing a major subdivision request and following requirements In Section 111-13 entitled Approval Procedures for Major Subdivisions. (page 9--Subdivision Regulations) Concept Plan Submission Section III-C-1 (fourth paragraph) (page 1.1 —Subdivision Regulations) Review and Approval Procedures Section III-C-3 (fourth paragraph) seed- a 13 4 (page 12 -Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures Section III-C-5 (first and second paragraphs) appealed, the , wheFe The Planning Department's decision regarding a minor subdivision application may be appealed by filing a major subdivision request and following requirements in Section III-D entitled Aparoval Procedures for Major Subdivisions. deeisien is made. (page 14-Subdivision Regulations) Neighborhood Information Meeting Section III-D-1.d (first paragraph-second_sentence) The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) shall be held a minimum of 14 days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the concept plan is scheduled to be heard. Notices of the NIM shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the meeting. (page 14-Subdivision Regulations) Planning Department Review Procedures Section III-D-1-e (first paragraph) WthiR thiFty (30) days ef the date ef the Neighb9Fheed WeFmatieR Meeting, eff WithiS GUeh fUFtheF time-setisented te-ie-writiAj-by theappiiean#, the The Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board its recommendation, including a written analysis of the Concept Plan; its general compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable codes and ordinances, and the comments of neighboring property owners expressed at the Neighborhood Information Meeting. if the O1 ^"'"^ ^°r^':meRt f it +e '° Fe"e"t to the (page 14a-Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review and Aooroval Procedures Section III-D-1-f (fourth paragraph) The Plansi-R9 E3eaFd shall take aetien withiR feFty five 09) days ef the ffleetiRS-41­whish the PlaRning apolieaRt. if the Planning BeaFd fails te -take aetien will 1 11 1 e9ified timi- . . exteRsiwv (page 14a-Subdivision Regulations) Action Subseguent to Approval Section III-D-1-g (third paragraph) From the date of approval of the Concept Plan Development Options by the Planning Board, the applicant shall have efle 1) yeaF two (2) years in which to prepare and file an application for 14 Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for subdivision has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan Development Options shall become null and void. (page 14a—Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures III-D-1-h (first paragraph) The decision of the Planning Board regarding Concept Plan Development Options may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. Any appeal shall be filed within 3 days after the date of the Planning Board's decision. if appealed, the PeyeFepmenAptieRs-shall be plaeed eFi the ^^ '., FegulaF FneetiRg ageRda-e . The Board of Commissioners shall have .,final approval authority, and where applicable, all Concept Plan Development Options shall contain .information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. (page 14c—Subdivision Regulations) Planning Department Review Procedures Section III-D-2-b (second paragraph) VAthh; .94y five (46) days ef the date ef aeseptanse ef the G W WithiR sweh fuFtheF ti The Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board a written analysis of the Concept Plan and its recommendation. if the RlanniRg' PepaFtment fails te pFepaFe a FepeFt te the Planning BeaFd within the speeified time t (page 14d —Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-2-c (third paragraph) The PlaRllillg 13eaFd shall take arAien eR the ffepeecil Wthin feFly fWe (45) days ef the meetiAg at. wfitiAg by he ` pplisaRt• if the P17LTlanniRg Be aFd fails ire take aetien within spei.ffied tiffie peFied, t the Planning 13eaFd shall be deemed te FeeemmeFid appFeval ef the-Geneept Plan (page 14d —Subdivision Regulations) Action Subsequent to Approval Section III-D-2-d (second paragraph) From the date of approval of the Concept Plan by the Planning Board, the applicant shall have ene (4-) year- two 12) years in which to prepare and file an application for Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan shall become null and void. (page 14d—Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures Section III-D-2-e (first paragraph) The decision of the Planning Board regarding a Concept Plan may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. Any appeal shall be filed within 3 days after the date of the Planning Board's decision. it appealed, The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and, where applicable; all Concept Plans shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. . 15 z (page 18—Subdivision Regulations) Planning Department Review Procedures Section III-D-3-b (fifth paragraph) Upon receipt of the comments and recommendations from review officers and agencies, the Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board a written analysis of the application and its recommendation, Tho ­I­t shall e PFePaFed_ -and sub-Mitted te the Planning 89aFd within eighty :Aye (86) days ef the date ef aeeeptaHse ef the appliSaWFI 9F WRWA surh time sensented- W iR WFiti (page 18—Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review Procedures Section III-D-3-c (third paragraph) ibe Planning BeaFd Fe its FesemmeRdatiene withiR feFty We (45) days ef the Meeting at (page 19—Subdivision Regulations) Board of Commissioners Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-3-d (first paragraph) , (page 19-20 —Subdivision Regulations) Board of Commissioners Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-3-d (fourth paragraph) (page 24a— Subdivision Regulations) Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-4-b third paragraph —second sentence) If the Planning Department approves the application with conditions or denies the application,'the reasons for such decision shall be stated in writing to-the applicant. deeisieR is made (page 24a — Subdivision Regulations) Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-4-b (fourth paragraph) The PlanAing PepaFt::�6nt shall take aetien within faFty FWe (45) daye, ef the date ef asseeptanee ef PIaRniRq PepaAmei:it fails te take astien within the speeified time p6Fied, *WeR.-sieA Gdroberlenmht—t r;,1an G01_A 16 Page 24b —Subdivision Regulations)Appeal Procedures Section III-D-5 (first and second paragraph) The decision of the Planning Department regarding a Major Subdivision Final Plat application may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. If appealed, the application GM4 may be placed on the next regular meeting agenda of the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and where applicable, all Final Plats shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners in all such appeals shall make findings of fact in support of its decision'. The applicant shall be notified, in writing, of the Board of Commissioners' decision. within teR days afteF s6id d (page 79— Subdivision Regulations) Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing Section VII-D-4 (third paragraph) The Planning BeaFd Shall GUIDI'Ait its Feeemmendafiens, instudikg the FeaseRs f9F.its deteFffliRatien, te the i3eaFd ef Gemmis6i9R6Fs withiR a (75) days afteF sweh ameRdmeHts have bebR WWFed-te the PlaAnkig BeaFd. Failijre te submit a FeeemmeRdatiei+within the sperified PeFied shall �mn;;Wwte a faYeFable FeeemmendatieR by the PlanniRg BeaFdr Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Time Limitations StFikethFeugh text indicates deletion. Bold text indicates proposed wording. Proposed New Language: Amend DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 1.6 entitled Applications to be Processed Expeditiously and inserting under GENERAL PROVISIONS a new section 1.6 Applications to be Processed Expeditiously on page 1-2 with the following language: Recognizing that inordinate delays In acting upon appeals or applications may impose unnecessary costs on the appellant or applicant, the county shall make every reasonable effort to process appeals and permit applications as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the need to ensure that all development conforms to the requirements of this chapter. (page 2-11 —Zoning Ordinance) Board of Adjustment Administration Section 2.3.3.7 (eighth and ninth paragraphs) The Board shalt act on all applications before it , with emeeptieR ef appeal ef a Step W9Fk QFdeF, within abdy days (60) 9f Feeelpt ef the applieatieR. The Board shall act on any appeal of a Stop Work Order issued by the Zoning Officer within fiftee+r (4 5) days #eFn the date ef the Netiee ef Appeal. at its next regularly scheduled meeting. G:/rober/combtextdoe/s.no9()Irnti 17 (page 3-1 -Zoning Ordinance) Maintenance Responsibility Section 3.5 The Zoning Officer shall be responsible for entering amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas. Sweh eAtFie6 shall be made withiR thFee wediii:ig days ef the date ef pasSage ef sueh amendmel`46. (Appendix B-Zoning Ordinance (EDD Design Manual)) Aboroval Procedures/Site Plan Requirements Section 6.29.3 E. Development Review Meeting The Development Review Meeting will take place on the scheduled date at 3.98 in Conference Room#1 of the Planning and Agricultural building. .(page 8-4-Zoning Ordinance) Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendation Section 8.4.3 (first and second paragraphs) Withis feFty five (46) glays ef the Feeeipt ef the appileatien, sempletp iR all' Fespeetsr-The Zoning Officer shall cause an analysis to be made of the application by qualified representatives of the County and such other agencies or officials as-appear appropriate in the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, subdivision, soil erosion and sedimentation,- and health regulations, and, based upon that analysis., prepare a recommendation for consideration by,,in the case of a Class A, Special Uses, the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners and, in the Case of Class B Special Uses, the Board of Adjustment. The feFty fiye (46) day peFied may be ex4ended, With the wFMeR eeRseRt ef the applisant, up to a 3f si* (69) days. (page 8-4-Zoning Ordinance)-Recommendation Submitted to Planning Board or Board of Adjustment Section 8.4.4 The Zoning Officer shall submit the analysis and recommendation to the 48t Feg6laF MeetiRg of the Planning Board, in the case of Class A, Special Uses, or the Board of Adjustment, in the case of the Class B,-Special Uses, at the &St F9gU!aF Fneeting afteF the e*OiFatieFi ef the " fiVe (4 5) ddaY peFied sper.ified iR 8.4.3 eF ally 9)deRsiwi theFeef. (page 8-5-Zoning Ordinance) Planning Board Action on Class A Special Uses Section 8.4.6 (first and second paragraphs) The Planning Board, within si* (69) days ef the meetiRg at whish-the ZeniAg GfA Fesemmesdatien is as-sh-FAitted, shall prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of the application. FailwFe of the Planning 13eaFd te esubmit a Fesemmendatien AARks the. +eqLiiFed time shall RsideFed a faveFable Feeemmei:idatieR, witheut senditiens. (page 8-6 -Zoning Ordinance)Action Subsequent to the Board Action Section 8.5 (first paragraph) The Zoning Officer shall withis seven F) dayes cause notice of the disposition of the application to be sent by certified mail to the applicant and a copy of the decision to be filed in the office of the Zoning Officer. G-/mber/Cnrnht&.Yt(ine-lal-041—A 18 (page 20-2—Zoning Ordinance) Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendation Section 20.3.3 The Zoning Officer shall, within 30 days ef the Feeeipt ef aR applieetieR te affiend the Zening Mae-, cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. The 39 day peged may be e)deAded With the Witten eeRsent ef the applisailt, Up te a Fna*iFAUM e si* (60) days. The 30 d :i shall Ret apply te appliGaWFIS feF amendment te the Zening GFdiRaRse tems. Page 20-3 'Zoning Ordinance) Referral of Amendment Application to Planning Board Section 20.4 The Zoning Officer shall submit any application for amendment to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board for consideration and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. at the fiffit FegwlaF!FI�etiRq ;-;#eF the e)(pir-atieR ef tl�e 39 day peFied speeified in 20.3.3 eF aRy e)densi thefeef-. ThiS ffevislen pply te aFiy apolisatien feF amendmeFit te the '79niRg GFdinaRre (page 20-4 -Zoning Ordinance) Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing Section 20.7.2 (second, third and fourth paragraphs) The Planning Board shall after the date of the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of any application submitted by the public. Said time limit may be exteRded UP9R Fequest ef the applisant. Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not be subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of County Commissioners during the public hearing process. FailWFe ef the PlaRRlRq, E39aFd t9 GUIDFAit a F lelpld6tien withii; the FeqUiFed time shall be sensideFed a fayeFable FeeemmeAdatieR, without eeRditiens. The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the proposed amendment tmW si)dy (60) days afteF the fiFst date ef the publie heaFing e until the Planning Board makes " its recommendation. , whieheyeF eemee, fi In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint public hearing and any new evidence which was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. G:/roberImmhtextdncIRnv94/md PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION 19 An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations of Orange County Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations are hereby amended as follows: Section 1. Proposed Subdivision Regulation New Language: Amend CONTENTS by re-writing Section I to read Purpose, Authority, Jurisdiction, Private Property Rights and Applications to be Processed Expeditiously and inserting a new section I — E. Applications to be Processed Expeditiously on page 2 of the Subdivision Regulations for Orange County, NC to read as follows: Recognizing that inordinate delays in acting upon appeals or applications may impose unnecessary costs on the appellant or applicant, the county shall make every reasonable effort to process appeals and permit applications as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the need to ensure that all development conforms to the requirements of this chapter. Section 2. (page 9— Subdivision Regulations) Determination of Classification Section III-B-1 (fifth paragraph) If the subdivider wishes to appeal the decision of the Planning Department regarding the classification of a subdivision, he/she may appeal such decision to the Planning Board at its next regular meeting. The Planning Board shall have final approval authority regarding classification of the subdivision. All such appeals must be made, in writing, within thirty (30) days of the decision of the Planning Department. The Planning • .epartment's deteM.1 Minden of elassi..Gabon Fray be The Planning Board in all such appeals shall make findings of fact in support of its decision and shall notify the subdivider in writing., . Section 3. (page 9 — Subdivision Regulations) Concept Plan Submission Section III-C-1 (fourth paragraph) submissien by the apoweaRt. One (1) eepy ef the Geneept Plan shall be FetaiRed by the Plan . Section 4. (page 11 — Subdivision Regulations) Review and Approval Procedures Section III-C-3 (fourth paragraph) �,, , , eens tinted—t9 by WFittL7't R fi reie. fhe.m.�" �nnr#. if the Planning DepaFtFneRt fnila to rer deF a submitted Section 5. (page 12 — Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures Section III-C-5 (first and second paragraphs) G:/robert/PBORDTXT.doc/nov99/rpd 20 The decision of the Planning Department regarding a minor subdivision application may be appealed to the Planning Board. If appealed, the application shall be placed on the next regular meeting agenda of the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall have final approval authority, and, where applicable, all Final Plats shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Planning Board The Planning Department's dee-sieR FegaFdi - . )F subdivisien appli-eation may--be appealed by filin subdiVISiGIR Fequeet and fell AFements on Serption W D entitled 12FOGedUFes fGF MaiGF Subdivisions. The Planning Board in all such appeals shall make findings of fact in support of its decision. The subdivider shall be notified, in writing, of the Planning Board's decision. withiR teR (IQ) days afteF said deeisien is Fnade. Section 6. (page 14 - Subdivision Regulations) Neighborhood Information Meeting Section III-D-1.d (first paragraph-second sentence) The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) shall be held within 16 days ef aeseptaRee ef the applisatien, and ne a minimum of 14 days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the concept plan is scheduled to be heard. Notices of the NIM shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the meeting. Section 7. (page 14 - Subdivision Regulations) Planning Department Review Procedures Section III-D-1-e (first paragraph) Within thiFty (30) days ef the date of the Nei9hb9Fh9ed lAfeFFAatiei4 Meeting 9F withiR sue-h fiurt time seRseRted te in wFiting by the applisant, the The Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board its recommendation, including a written analysis of the Concept Plan; its general compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable codes "and ordinances, and the comments of neighboring property owners expressed at the Neighborhood Information Meeting. if the PlanAiAg DepaFtment failS t9 pFepaFe a Fep9Ft te the PlaRpiRg BeaFd within the speeified time peFied, eF extensieR theFeef, the Geneept Plan ir. Feeemmended witheut reRdkiens. The Planning Staff shall be allowed to defer the application and its recommendation for one (1) meeting beyond the Planning Board meeting at which the application is scheduled to be heard. Section 8. (page 14a-Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-1-f (fourth paragraph) The PlanRiRg BeaFd shall take aetien within " five (46) days ef the Fneeting iA whish the PI DepaFtmeRt'S FepeFt is submitted te it 9F Within sweh-fwthei: time GeRGeRted to iA WFitiAg by the appiisaRt. if the Planning l;9aFd fails te take a9tieR within the speeified time peFied, 9F e)deR i theFeef, the PlanAing I39aFd shall be deemed t9 Feeemmend appFeval ef the - Peneept P!aFi Develepment eptiess witheut eeRditien If the Planning Board fails to take action within two- regularly scheduled meetings, or extension thereof, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Board minutes and the Planning Staff recommendation and conditions, if any. Section 9. (page 14a-Subdivision Regulations) Action Subsequent to Approval Section III-D-1-g (third paragraph) G:/robert/PBORDTXT.doc/nov99/rpd 21 From the date of approval of the Concept Plan Development Options by the Planning Board, the applicant shall have ene-(1) yeaf two (2) years in which to prepare and file an application for Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for subdivision has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan Development Options shall become null and void. Section 10. (page 14a- Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures III-D-1-h (first paragraph) The decision of the Planning Board regarding Concept Plan Development Options may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. Any notice of appeal shall be filed, in writing, with the Planning Director within 15 days after the date of the Planning Board's decision. If the appeal involves a site plan map approval, sixteen (16) copies of the site plan map shall be filed at the same , time as the written appeal. if appealed, e IDevelepment Optiens shall be—planed en the Rext FegulaF meeting-agenda-ef-the BeaFd ^f '' .^ - The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and where applicable, all Concept Plan Development Options shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. Section 11. (page 14c- Subdivision Regulations) Planning Department Review Procedures Section III-D-2-b (second paragraph) Within feFty five (46) days ef the date ef aGGeptaRGe ef the Geneept Plan eF WithiA sUGh fUFtheF ti The Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board a written analysis of the Concept Plan and its recommendation. if the Planning DepaFt,. ent the Geneept Plan ir, .-^...,m.,.,^. ded wi+he t eenditiens. The Planning Staff shall be allowed to defer the application and its recommendation for one (1) meeting beyond the Planning Board meeting at which the application is scheduled to be heard. Section 12. (page 14d -Subdivision Regulations).Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-2-c (third paragraph) within TGFty fi.e (45) days of-.the. m^^+iRg a+ WFiting by the applieant.-if the Planning BeaFd fails te take aetien within the Gpe eified time peFied, ef If the Planning Board fails to take action within two regularly scheduled meetings, or extension thereof, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Board minutes and the Planning Staff recommendation and conditions, if any. Section 13. (page 14d - Subdivision Regulations) Action Subsequent to Approval Section III-D-2-d (second paragraph) From the date of approval of the Concept Plan by the Planning Board, the applicant shall have ene. (1-) yea f two 12) years in which to prepare and file an application for Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan shall become null and void. Section 14. (page 14d - Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures G:/robert/PBORDTXT.doc/nov99/rpd 22 Section III-D-2-e (first paragraph) The decision of the Planning Board regarding a Concept Plan may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. Any notice of appeal shall be filed, in writing, with the Planning Director within 16 days after the date of the Planning Board's decision. If the appeal involves a site plan map approval, sixteen (16) copies of the site plan map shall be filed at the same time as the written appeal, if appealed, the Geneept Plan shall be plaeed en the neXt FegulaF MeetiAq ageAda 9f the Bear-d ef GeFAFnissieiqeFs. The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and, where applicable, all Concept Plans shall contain. information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. Section 15. (page 18 —Subdivision Regulations) Planning Department Review Procedures Section III-D-3-b (fifth paragraph) Upon receipt of the comments and recommendations from review officers and agencies, the Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board a written analysis of the application and its recommendation. The FepeFt shall be pFepaFed and submitted te the RlaRniRg BeaFd within eighty five (86) days. ef the date ef aeseptaRee ef the applieatien eF withiR sush tiFne GORGeRted t9 iA wFAiAg by the applisant. if the Planning DepaFtment fails te PFepaFe a FepeFt te the PlanRing BeaFd within the speGified time limit, eF extensieRs theFeef-, the applieatieR iG FeeemmeRded witheut reRditiens. The Planning Staff shall be allowed to defer the application and its recommendation for one (1) meeting beyond the Planning Board meeting at which the application is scheduled to be heard. Section 16. (page 18—Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review Procedures Section III-D-3-c (third paragraph) The Planning l3eaFd shall PFepaFe its FeeemmendatieRs within feFty five (46) days ef the FneetiRg at whirsh the Planning DepaFtmest's FepeFt is submitted te it eF Within surh fuFtheF time eensented te iR WFitiF;q by the applieant. if the Planning BeaFd fails te take aetien within the speeified time peFied, 9F extei4sieR theFeef, the PlaRskig F3eeFd shall be deemed t9 Feeemmei:id appFgyal ef the GeReept Plan DevelepmeRt eptiqRs witheut eenditieRs-. If the Planning Board fails to take action within two regularly scheduled meetings, or extension thereof, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Board minutes and the Planning Staff recommendation and conditions, if any. Section 17. (page 19—Subdivision Regulations) Board of Commissioners Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-3-d (first paragraph) The Board of Commissioners shall receive the Planning Department's report and the Planning Board's recommendation. withiA " five (46) days ef the Planning i3eaFd meeting at whiGh the applieatien is fepwaFded te the Gemmissi Section 18. (page 19-20— Subdivision Regulations) Board of Commissioners Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-3-d (fourth paragraph) The E3eaFd ef Gem shall take aetien en the PF9pesal within feFty We (46) days ef the elese ef the Geunty Ge a meeting at whieh the PlanniRg 1306146 Feremmendatien is r.,ub,FAi#ed G:/robert/PBORDTXT.doc/nov99/rpd 23 The Board of County Commissioners shall hear the application within 90 days-after receiving the Planning Board report and the Planning Staff report. The Commissioners shall have an additional 60 days in which to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Section 19. (page 24a — Subdivision Regulations) Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-4-b third paragraph —second sentence) If the Planning Department approves the application with conditions or denies the application, the reasons for such decision shall be stated in writing to the applicant. within ten (10) days afteF said desisien is made. Section 20. (page 24a —Subdivision Regulations) Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-4-b (fourth paragraph) The Plannii;q [DepaFtment shall take aetieA within feFty We (45) days ef the date ef aGeeptanee.ef , Section 21. page 24b- Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures Section III-D-5 (first and second paragraph) The decision of the Planning Department regarding a Major Subdivision Final Plat application may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. if appealed the application shall he plase.d en the Re)d FegulaF meeting agenda ef The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and where applicable, all Final Plats shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners in all such appeals shall make findings of fact in support of its decision. The applicant shall be notified, in writing, of the Board of Commissioners' decision. within ten (40) days afteF said desisieR is Fnade Section 22. (page 79 — Subdivision Regulations) Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing Section VII-D-4 (third paragraph) The Planning_Board shall submit its recommendations, including the reasons for its determination, to the Board of Commissioners. within-s axis afteF SUarr affieAdMeRtS haVe he . If the Planning Board fails to take action within two regularly scheduled meetings, or extension thereof, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Board minutes and the Planning Staff recommendation and conditions, if any. Section 23. Proposed Zoning Ordinance New Language: Amend DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 1.6 entitled Applications to G:/robert/PBORDTXT.doc/nov99/rpd 24 be Processed Expeditiously and inserting under GENERAL PROVISIONS a new section 1.6 Applications to be Processed Expeditiously on page 1-2 with the following language: Recognizing that inordinate delays in acting upon appeals or applications may impose unnecessary costs on the appellant or applicant, the county shall make every reasonable effort to process appeals and permit applications as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the need to ensure that all development conforms to the requirements of this chapter. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 24. (page 2-11 —Zoning Ordinance) Board of Adjustment Administration Section 2.3.3.7 (second and third paragraphs) The Board shall act on all applications before it. , with emeeptien ef appeal ef a St9p W9Fk QFdeF, within sixty days (60) ef Fereipt ef the appliratien. The Board shall act on any appeal of a Stop Work Order issued by the Zoning Officer within fifte (15) days fr-em the date ef the Netirse ef Appeal'. at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Section 25. (page 3-1 —Zoning Ordinance) Maintenance Responsibility Section 3.5 The Zoning Officer shall be responsible for entering amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas. SuGh , eAtFies sih6all befflade withiA thFee W9FkiR9 days ef the date of passage ef sUeh ameRdffleFAS. Section 26. (Appendix B—Zoning Ordinance (EDD Design Manual)) Approval Procedures/Site Plan Requirements Section 6.29.3 E. Development Review Meeting The Development Review Meeting will take place on the scheduled date at 3-00 p.ffih in GeRfSFenrae Reem #1 the Planning and Agricultural Building. Section 27. (page 8-4—Zoning Ordinance) Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendation Section 8.4.3 (first and second paragraphs) WthiR feFty flye (45) days, ef the Feeeipt ef the applieatieR, eemplete in all r-espeetar-The Zoning Officer shall cause an analysis to be made of the application by qualified representatives of the County and such other agencies or officials as appear appropriate in the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, subdivision, soil erosion and sedimentation, and health regulations, and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by, in the case of a Class A, Special Uses, the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners and, in the Case of Class B Special Uses, the Board of Adjustment. The feFty five (46) day peFied Fnay be exteRded, With the WFittes eeRseRt ef the applieaRt, up te a :R ef ai* (60) days. Section 28. (page 8-4—Zoning Ordinance) Recommendation Submitted to Planning Board or Board of Adjustment Section 8.4.4 The Zoning Officer shall submit the analysis and recommendation to the fiFSt FegWIaF meeting 9f the Planning Board, in the case of Class A, Special Uses, or the Board of Adjustment, in the case of the Av Class B, Special Uses, at the &St FequlaF meeting afteF the expiFatiwi ef the fe.., fiye (46) day peFied speeified iA 8.4.3 eF any extension theFeef. G:/robert/PB ORDTXT.doc/nov99/rpd 25 Section 29. (page 8 75 —Zoning Ordinance) Planning Board Action on Class A Special Uses Section 8.4.6 (first and second paragraphs) The Planning Board, ' Fee.e mme7ndatie,n submitted, shall prepare.and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of the application. If the Planning Board fails to take action within two regularly scheduled meetings, or extension thereof, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Board minutes and the Planning Staff recommendation and conditions, if any. . Section 30. (page 8-6 —Zoning Ordinance) Action Subsequent to the Board Action Section 8.5 (first paragraph) The Zoning Officer shall cause notice of the disposition of the application to be sent by certified mail to the applicant and a copy of the decision to be filed in the office of the Zoning Officer. Section 31. (page 20-2 —Zoning Ordinance) Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendation Section 20.3.3 The Zoning Officer shall, within 30 days of the Feeeipt ef aR applieatieR t9 aFneRd the ZeRiRg AtlaG, cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. si)dy (60) days. The 30 day pFeyisien shall Ret apply te applieatieRr, feF amendment te the Zenkiq Q Fdananee to )(t Section 32. Page 20-3 —Zoning Ordinance) Referral of Amendment Application to Planning Board Section 20.4 The Zoning Officer shall submit any application for amendment to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board,for consideration and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. at the tee Section 33. (page 20-4 - Zoning Ordinance) Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing Section 20.7.2 (second, third and fourth paragraphs) The Planning Board shall after the date of the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of any application submitted by the public. If the Planning Board fails to take action within two regularly scheduled meetings, or extension thereof, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Board minutes and the Planning Staff recommendation and conditions, if any. G:/robert/PB ORDTXT.doc/nov99/rpd 26 Said time limit Fnay be e*tended upeR Fequest ef the appliGa Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not be subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of County Commissioners during the public hearing process. Failwe ef the PlanRing BeaFd to. submit a Feremmendatien withiR the FeqUiFed time shall be G9nsider-ed a fayeFable FeeemmeRdatieR, witheut eeRditiess. The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the proposed amendment Uf#4 r,i* (60) days afteF the fiFst date ef the publie heaFiAg 9F until the Planning Board either makes this its recommendation or takes no action on the application within two regularly scheduled meetings. , WhiGheYeF eemer, fi In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint public hearing and any new evidence which was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. Section 34.. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. Clerk, Board of County Commissioners Chair, Orange County Commissioners (Signature) (Signature) Date and Seal G:/robert/PBORDTXT.doetnov99/rpd ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL 27 An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations of Orange County Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations are hereby amended as follows: Section 9. Proposed Subdivision Regulation New Language: Amend CONTENTS by re-writing Section I to read Purpose, Authority, Jurisdiction, Private Property Rights and Applications to be Processed Expeditiously and inserting a new section I - E. Applications to be Processed Expeditiously on page 2 of the Subdivision Regulations for Orange County, NC to read as follows: Recognizing that inordinate delays in acting upon appeals or applications may impose unnecessary costs on the appellant or applicant, the county shall make every reasonable effort to process appeals and permit applications as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the need to ensure that all development conforms to the requirements of this chapter. Section 2. (page 9 - Subdivision Regulations) Determination of Classification Section III-B-1 (fifth paragraph) if the subdayadeF wishes te appeal the deeisien of the Planning DepaFtment Fegarding the the subdiy's'en. All sueh appeals must be Faade, iR WFiting, within thir-ty (30) days of the deension e appealed by filing a majGF subdivision Fequest and f8l'GWiRg FeqUiFements on Section 111 D The Rlanning Beard all sueh appeals shall make findings ef faet in supper-t ef its deeisien and shall notify the subdiyideF ., . Section 3. (page 9 - Subdivision Regulations) Concept Plan Submission Section III-C-1 (fourth paragraph) The Planning DepaFtrnent shall eemplete its Feyiew of the Geneept Rian within feuFteen (14) day Section 4. (page 11 - Subdivision Regulations) Review and Approval Procedures Section III-C-3 (fourth paragraph) The Planning Department shall notify the applicant of its action., thereto, within feFty fiye (46) days fellewing aeoeptane- ef the applieation, OF within sueh fuFtheF ti submitted. Section 5. (page 12 - Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures Section III-C-5 (first and second paragraphs) The decision of the Planning Department regarding a minor subdivision application may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. if appealed,-the-e plisatien hall be plaeed-en the n meeting agenda The Board of County Commissioners shall have G:/robert/ADMINORD.doc/nov99/revFeb00/rpd ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL 28 final approval authority, and, where applicable, all Final Plats shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners in all such appeals shall make findings of fact in support of its decision. The subdivider shall be notified, in writing, of the Commissioner's decision. within ten (101 7'v7 days aftei:said de de-. Section 6. (page 14 —Subdivision Regulations) Neighborhood Information Meeting Section III-D-1.d (first paragraph-second sentence) The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) shall be held within 46 days ef aeeeptaAE;e ef the applieatien, and netiees a minimum of 14 days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the concept plan is scheduled to be heard. Notices of the NIM shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the meeting. Section 7: (page 14 — Subdivision Regulations) Planning Department Review Procedures Section I I I-D-11-e (first paragraph) Within thiFty (30) days ef the date ef the Neighl§Wheed WOFFnatien Meeting eF within sueh fuFthe time eensented te in WFitiRg by the applieant, the The Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board its recommendation, including a written analysis of the Concept Plan; its general compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable codes and ordinances, and the comments of neighboring property owners expressed at the Neighborhood Information Meeting, if the Planning DepaFtment fails te pr-epaFe a r-epeFt te the Planning BeaFd within the speeffied time period, BF ex4ensien theFeef, the Geneept Plan is Feeemmended without eenditiens. The Planning Staff shall be allowed to defer the application and its recommendation for one (1) meeting beyond the Planning Board meeting at which the application is scheduled to be heard. Section 8. (page 14a—Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-1-f (fourth paragraph) The Planning BeaFd shall take aetien within fer-ty fiye (46) days ef the Fneeting in whieh the Planning DepaFtment'S FepeFt is submitted te it er within sueh fuFtheF time eeRsented te in WFiting by the applieant. if the Planning Bear-d fails te take aetien within the speeified tiFne peded, OF exten i theFeef, the Planning [3eaFd shall be deemed tO Feeemmend appFeval of the Geneept Plan Develepment eptiens witheut eenditiens. If the Planning Board fails to take action within two regularly scheduled meetings, or extension thereof, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Board minutes and the Planning Staff recommendation and conditions, if any. Section 9. (page 14a— Subdivision Regulations)Action Subsequent to Approval Section III-D-1-g (third paragraph) From the date of approval of the Concept Plan Development Options by the Planning Board, the applicant shall have eta-{1) year two (2) years in which to prepare and file an application for Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for subdivision has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan Development Options shall become null and void. Section 10. (page 14a — Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures G:/robert/ADMrNORD.doc/nov99/revFeb00/rpd ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL 29 III-D-1-h (first paragraph) The decision of the Planning Board regarding Concept Plan Development Options may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. Any notice of appeal shall be filed, in writing, with the Planning Director within 15 days after the date of the Planning Board's decision. If the appeal involves a plan/map approval, sixteen (16) copies of the plan/map shall be submitted along with the written appeal. if appealed, the Development Options shall be plaeed en the neA FegulaF Fneeting agenda the BeaFd of G^"""' issi^ . The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and where applicable, all Concept Plan Development Options shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. Section 11. (page 14c— Subdivision Regulations) Planning Department Review Procedures Section III-D-2-b (second paragraph) Wathin feFty fiYe (45) days ef the date ef aeeeptanee of the Gen F within sueh fuFtheF time The Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board a written analysis of the Concept Plan and its recommendation. if the PlaAning DepakffleRt , the Geneept Plan is F^,. ended without eenditiens The Planning Staff shall be allowed to defer the application and development recommendation for one (1) meeting beyond the Planning Board meeting at which the application is scheduled to be heard. Section 12. (page 14d —Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-2-c (third paragraph) The-Wang-Bear-shall-take aetien on the Fepesal within fealy fiye (46) days of the meeting at Witing by the applieant.,If the Planning BeaFd fails te take aetien within the speeified time peFied, -ef If the Planning Board fails to take action within two regularly scheduled meetings, or extension thereof, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Board minutes and the Planning Staff recommendation and conditions, if any. Section 13. (page 14d —Subdivision Regulations)Action Subsequent to Approval Section III-D-2-d (second paragraph) From the date of approval of the Concept Plan by the Planning Board, the applicant shall have sae (1)year two {2) years in which to prepare and file an application for Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan shall become null and void. Section 14. (page 14d — Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures Section III-D-2-e (first paragraph) The decision of the Planning Board regarding a Concept Plan may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. Any notice of appeal shall be filed, in writing, with the Planning Director within 15 days after the date of the Planning Board's decision. If the appeal involves a plan/map approval, sixteen (16) copies of the plan/map shall be filed along with the written appeal. # appealed, the Geneept Plan shall be plaeed en the neXt FegUlaF meeting agenda ef the BqaFd ef Gammoss;eneFS. The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and, where. G:/roberdADMINORD.doc/nov99/revFeb00/rpd ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL 30 applicable, all Concept Plans shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. Section 15. (page 18 - Subdivision Regulations) Planning Department Review Procedures Section III-D-3-b (fifth paragraph) Upon receipt of the comments and recommendations from review officers and agencies, the Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board a written analysis of the application and its recommendation. five (86) days ef the date ef aeeeptanee ef the applieation 8F within sueh tome eensented te in w4tiRg by the applieant. If the Planning DepaFtment fails te PFepaFe a FepeFt te the Planning BeaFd within the . The Planning Staff shall be allowed to defer the application and its recommendation for one (1) meeting beyond the Planning Board meeting at which the application is scheduled to be heard. Section 16. (page 18 - Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review Procedures Section III-D-3-c (third paragraph) The Planning-Bid--shall-pf WF;t4Rg by the applieant. if the PlanHing BeaFd fails te take aetien within the speelfied time peFied, e e)Etens;en theFeef, the Planning BeaFd shall be deemed te reGemmend appFeval ef the Geneept Plan If the Planning Board fails to take action within two regularly scheduled meetings, or extension thereof, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Board minutes and the Planning Staff recommendation and conditions, if any. Section 17. (page 19 - Subdivision Regulations) Board of Commissioners Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-3-d (first paragraph) The Board of Commissioners shall receive the Planning Department's report and the Planning Board's recommendation. within feFty fiye (46) days of the Planning Beard meeting at whieh the Section 18. (page 19-20 - Subdivision Regulations) Board of Commissioners Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-3-d (fourth paragraph) The BeaFd ef Gem ' ' shall take a6tien en the pFepesal within feFty five (45) days of the elese The application shall be placed on the Board of County Commissioners agenda within 90 days of the Planning Board recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application within a reasonable amount of time. During deliberations and consideration of the application the Board may include the reasons for the need for additional analysis and review. G:/robert/ADMINORD.doc/nov99/revFeb00/rpd ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL 31 Section 19. (page 24a - Subdivision Regulations) Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-4-b third paragraph - second sentence) If the Planning Department approves the application with conditions or denies the application, the reasons for such decision shall be stated in writing to the applicant. within ten (10) days afteF Gaud de ade Section 20. (page 24a - Subdivision Regulations) Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-4-b (fourth paragraph) The Planning DepaFtment shall take aetien within feFty five (46) days of the date of aeeeptanee of t Planning t fails to take aetien within the speeified time peded, eF exte SiAR fl— Section 21. page 24b- Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures Section III-D-5 (first and second paragraph) The decision of the Planning Department regarding a Major Subdivision Final Plat application may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. if appealed the ., ..leaden shall be ..,l.,,.e d on the next Fegu!aF meeting agenda of the Board of G The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and where applicable, all Final Plats shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners in all such appeals shall make findings of fact in support of its decision. The applicant shall be notified, in writing, of the Board of Commissioners' decision. within ten (1111 Section 22. (page 79 - Subdivision Regulations) Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing Section VII-D-4 (third paragraph) The Planning Board shall submit its recommendations, including the reasons for its determination, to the Board of Commissioners. Fefeffed te the Planning Bear-d. F e- t.-A Subl;.n..t a Feeemmendatien within the speeified peFied shall . The Board of County Commissioners may direct the Planning Board to provide a recommendation by a date certain. If the Board of County Commissioners does not so direct, the Planning Board shall make its recommendation within three regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings. If the Planning Board fails to make a recommendation as directed by the Board of County Commissioners or within three regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings, whichever is applicable, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendation. Section 23. Proposed Zoning Ordinance New Language: Amend DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 1.6 entitled Applications to be Processed Expeditiously and inserting under GENERAL PROVISIONS a new section 1.6 Applications to be Processed Expeditiously on page 1-2 with the following language: Recognizing that inordinate delays in acting upon appeals or applications may impose unnecessary costs on the appellant or applicant, the county shall make every reasonable G:/robert/ADMINORD.doc/nov99/revFeb00/rpd ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL 32 effort to process appeals and permit applications as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the need to ensure that all development conforms to the requirements of this chapter. Section 24. (page 2-11 -Zoning Ordinance) Board of Adjustment Administration Section 2.3.3.7 (second and third paragraphs) The Board shall act on all applications before it. , with exeeptien ef appeal ef a Step WeFk OFdeF, within sixty days (60) ef Feeeipt of the a0plieatien. The Board shall act on any appeal of a Stop Work Order issued by the Zoning Officer within fifteen (16) days fFeFn the date ef the Netiee of Appeal. at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Section 25. (page 3-1 -Zoning Ordinance) Maintenance Responsibility Section 3.5 The Zoning Officer, or designee, shall be responsible for entering amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas. Sueh el"ItFies shall be Fnade within thFee WOFking days of the date of passage of amendments. Section 26. (Appendix B-Zoning Ordinance (EDD Design Manual)) Approval Procedures/Site Plan Requirements Section 6.29.3 - E. Development Review Meeting The Development Review Meeting will take place on the scheduled date at 3.00 p.FA-., in GenfeFenee Reem #1 the Planning and Agricultural Building. Section 27. (page 8-4 -Zoning Ordinance)Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendation Section 8.4.3 (first and second paragraphs) Within feFty fiYe (46) days ef the Feeeipt of the appliesation, eemplete in all Fespeets-;-The Zoning Officer shall cause an analysis to be made of the application by qualified representatives of the County and such other agencies or officials as appear appropriate in the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, subdivision, soil erosion and sedimentation, and health regulations, and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by, in the case of a Class A, Special Uses, the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners and, in the Case of Class B Special Uses, the Board of Adjustment. The feFty fiye (46) day peFied may be ex4ended, with the written eensent ef the applieant, up to a im ef si)dy (60) days. Section 28. (page 8-4-Zoning Ordinance) Recommendation Submitted to Planning Board or Board of Adjustment Section 8.4.4 The Zoning Officer shall submit the analysis and recommendation to the first f:egU!aF Meeting ef the Planning Board, in the case of Class A, Special Uses, or the Board of Adjustment, in the case of the Class B, Special Uses. , at the fiffit Fe9ulaF meeting afteF the expiiatien ef the feFty flye (45) day peFied speeified in 8.4.3 eF any extensien theFeef. Section 29. (page 8-5 -Zoning Ordinance) Planning Board Action on Class A Special Uses Section 8.4.6 (first and second paragraphs) G:/robert/ADMINORD.doc/nov99/revFebOO/rpd ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL 33 The Planning Board; within-sixty--(60) days of the at w;teh the-Zeniing o Tee s Fee mmer.datien is submitted-, shall prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of the application. The Board of County Commissioners may direct the Planning Board to provide a recommendation by a date certain. If the Board of County Commissioners does not so direct, the Planning Board shall make its recommendation within three regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings. If the Planning Board fails to make a recommendation as directed by the Board of County Commissioners or within. three regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings, whichever is applicable, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendation. Failure ef the Planning BeaFd to submit a Feeemmendatien within the FequwFed tome shall . Section 30. (page 8-6-Zoning Ordinance) Action Subsequent to the Board Action Section 8.5 (first paragraph) The Zoning Officer shall cause notice of the disposition of the application to be sent by wed U.S. Mail, First Class to the applicant and a copy of the decision to be filed in the office of the Zoning Officer. Section 31. (page 20-2 -Zoning Ordinance) Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendation Section 20.3.3 The Zoning Officer shall, within 30 days ef the Feeeipt ef an applieatien tamend- Bening Atlas, cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. si)dy (60) days. The 30 day pFeYiSien shall net apply to applaeatieRS feF aMeRdfflent tG the ZORiP@ (lrrlinane+e text Section 32. Page 20-3 -Zoning Ordinance) Referral of Amendment Application to Planning Board Section 20.4 The Zoning Officer shall submit any application for amendment to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board for consideration and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. at the theFeef. This pmyisien shall not apply to any applioatien f8F amendment te the Zening (Dr-dinanee test. Section 33. (page 20-4 - Zoning Ordinance) Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing Section 20.7.2 (second, third and fourth paragraphs) The Planning Board shall after the date of the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of any application submitted by the public. The Board of County Commissioners may direct the Planning Board to provide a recommendation by a date certain. If the Board of County Commissioners does not so direct, the Planning Board shall make its recommendation within three regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings. If the Planning Board fails to make a G:/robert/ADMINORD.doc/nov99/revFeb00/rpd ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL 34 recommendation as directed by the Board of County Commissioners or within three regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings, whichever is applicable, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendation. Said time liFnit Fnay be extended upen Fequest of the-applieafA- Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not be subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of County Commissioners during the public hearing process. FaiIUFe ef the Planning Board to submit a Feeemmendatien within the FeqUiFed tiffie Shall be . The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the proposed amendment sixty (60) days afteF the fiFSt date ef the publie heaFiH� until the Planning Board either makes this its recommendation or takes no action on the application as prescribed in this section. ; wh*eheyer eemes In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint public hearing and any new evidence which was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. Section 34. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. (Signature) (Signature) Clerk, Board of County Commissioners Chair, Orange County Commissioners Date and Seal G:/robert/ADMINORD.doc/nov99/revFeb00/rpd 35 -0 ; C 00 2c z m Z > 0 ca b m a V a z -ato 0 0 tr a CD w U2 0 0 -4 z 0 0 CL su BL o 0 In CL CD cr cr CL m cr 0' CD U2 m ot C,) 0 Il 0 a a a a • Z Z- r� CD m CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < < • co M co CA C— C— C— C— 0 C- CD w Ci C- CD CD CD m 0 w rr cr rr t7 W - " & 03 -4 -n -n z m co in w w rr z -1 tr " —& —& co 0) M C4 co W > > > b > 03 w CD 0 -4 0 -It - 1 0.rn C- CA 0 WC rAl rM C K 10> g > 0 �< I< 03 In Cr C4 c L; ;u dc " Cr C- z 0 C- C- C- C- C- C- C- 0 r 0 m CD Z CD 0 CD 0 CD CD CD c c (a 0 5. -.& CA 46 W 0 0 0 0 CD m Cl) z 0 0 rn cil 0 (0 K3 N y 8. Z z z z Z z C7f 0 0 0 < 0 CD CD CD CD CD 0 z z m 0 a 0 < co v vo ma a '?� it O n a o C caD = = t�D m 30 a n .Q 3 ca c °cQ N CD o " ° •� co ca c�a � ° -o � •.« � co' �:, � to �* cc a c < � i C7 s, o CD a - o o v z z Z ,a N N w a .. W CD -i -4 O CD m co CD ., 0 0 h �. .� N N N N s .A. 1� -► o N t1i OD N -n -n -n r_ C_ C_ m '"V a v. o. cr A) m m ro m m -p Z A c co j CD m co N to O Z rn o N c °° .p a. Q> c w w c CD N cn ,y cr C c C L !L . (a m C G - t3t OD O Cit V p W tit O co c c0 "fl rn C7 . .Na N N Z _ c _ _ y O N V co N !�? Z CD CD m CO C _"Q y O < e�.f. T r+ t is tNn o to p w m N m z z z p p Q NO tN0 -4 c v v ' v z z Z o • o � �v � N "'� � N N Lri � - p C 37 0 Cr CD 0 CD # o m m v •a t3 M r q y+ to r m m A o, a cD O O 177 0 o q0 o = cD to cat U O cr ;a a =' a C 0 H n to i 0 5r ^a LS .a � '0 C7 C .0 0� i2. _. .. cD n a y T> C3 H A o A a . o m —• a 0 `� c a vqL . cD o '= •' 'ti � C a p as �� � o� (DD �' coo m � � � � (� cc to 3 as w eD r.. = so m = 3 a' 0 e o; a c "+ v ; _ +ca cr 0 -0 w n+ CA ITO (a CD LL .w p N+ tD CL Cl) m m C- S a z n ' -n m -n -n -M -n -n 7n t c. C- �,, m 93 0.� w o• a• c• r`r a• c• a• a a m w' 'hl W e N CO L .ia i cn O O A GGo m a i •i cn N w c� Ow N N N w N N •C "! (Q C" co cTi t0 N Co N CD O V N C— 0 0 CL o _ CD z C)-- (A cn A A A a . a A A C- C a Q eD cD c c c c e c c c ;- c A V •o cc to cc cc cc cc cc E cct c y W .Dr N N N'i N i V cn W Qa N coo i i i i O fro .. m ' O n -n C- c•• c Q z z z z z z z z o o z CD m m rD 0 o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 � zo ro O* O C4 N i N i i i i V N i m N N C * N th ..s V O 0 O * C t4 V • Q m ' n Orange County, North Carolina 38 JPA Public Hearing Schedule For April 12, 2000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Filing Deadline-5:00 PM Jan 26 Accept/Reject by: Jan 31 Agency Review Requests Feb 01 Abstracts Due for BOCC Agenda Review(Legal Ad Due) Feb 14 BOCC Agenda Review Feb IS, BOCC Approval of Legal Ad Publication Feb 29 Planning Board(Review) Mar I Sign Posting Deadline Mar 24 Adjoining Property Owners'Mallout Mar 24 Legal Ad to Newspapers Mar 24 Publish First Legal Ad Mar 29 PH Abstracts Due Mar 29 Publish Second Legal Ad Apr 5 Copy/Distribute PH Packet Apr 6 Public Hearing @ 7:30 PM Apr 12 Chapel Hill Planning Board (Recommendation) Apr 18 Carrboro Planning Board (Recommendation) May 4 Chapel Hill Town Council(Decision) May 8 Carrrboro Board of Aldermen (Decision) May 9 PB Abstracts Due May 26 Copy/Distribute,PB Packet May 31 PB Recommendation(Regular Meeting) Jun 7 BOCC Abstracts Due Jun 15 BOCC Regular Meeting(Decision) Jun 29 Date Changed or Subject to Change g:/robertIJ PAP HADManOO/revi 2ian 39 Orange County, North Carolina JPA Public Hearing Schedule For October 2, 2040 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Filing Deadline-5:00 PM Ju121 Accept(Reject by: Jul 26 Agency Review Requests Jul 28 Abstracts Due for BOCC Agenda Review(Legal Ad Due) Jul 31 BOCC Agenda Review Aug 1 BOCC Approval of Legal Ad Publication Aug 15 Planning Board(Review) Sep 6 Sign Posting Deadline Sep 15 Adjoining Property Owners' Mahout Sep 15 Legal Ad to Newspapers Sep 15 Publish First Legal Ad 1 Sep 20 PH Abstracts Due Sep 20 Copy/Distribute PH Packet Sep 25 Publish Second Legal Ad Sep 27 PUBLIC HEARING @ 7:30 PM Oct 2 Chapel Hill Planning Board (Recommendation) -Oct 17 Carrboro Planning Board (Recommendation) Oct 19* PB Abstracts Due Oct 23 Carrrboro Board of Aldermen (Decision) Oct 24* Copy/Distribute PB Packet Oct 25 PB Recommendation(Regular Meeting) Nov 2 Chapel Hill Town Council (Decision) Nov 13 BOCC Abstracts Due Nov 21 BOCC Regular Meeting (Decision) Dec 4 * = Date Changed or Subject to Change 40 It Cr Mn A m z0 = �y � = 0 to to C12 Ch o rob = g 17 ;I eo o cc ate, . 0 CL C6 ra M co ca CD CL CL CL a► m _ CA tD tD a � ' (D. C~ C- m m m m m m w �• A co CJt co N V o O `,_✓ CAD t�D � ((D w w m A '11 > > cr co V CON NiJD NtA NO V A 0 `n �1 "�1 'Ti T fl�1 W 0 Nw U rr Q' CCl" O' •mss V 0) C O -► al M cNT1 CO -� W X C. A A A m m Dpi n�i 'O > /�)' 0 M 13 03 A to in co NA v O O A A A A A 0 C o o i v O CA CA t D co c N O h m S C., C._ C.. C.• c.. Cr L Z W ca CM co co w w w as X c i to r c c c c c G � O O V co N .Ni -46 .p. V +� Q "a •o v ca ra cn co to � m m rn A CA O cm Us rNTS ao -. .s co W N A -NJ N N Ut C D m •�! cz 0 0 o g 0 O O O 10 z CD •� as m _4 a 0 o w �s v C � a o 0 0 0 0 v (D CD 0 0 < < < < < < ' a m cn .A, CD co �a' Is v o 0 L C— c. v © O my p v cm, cs n o a z iv N N W N N cm co C3 � * w s � 41 ~ "-` `+ ►° ' \C 00 00 J �1 01 tJl A W W N N r-. 00 d^C7 Zt DO O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O C O p 0 0 0 0 O O O ° CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v ED 0 CO v l^^J ll ., N ►-• -• ob �1 Q\ t!t to A W W N .-• � N � �--• O O � � �p � 00 � •.1 � Q\ � � � � � � W � N � � rfl t9 O O N �+ �-. N N N ►- N .. w ►-. r-. ° 00O ". N OO 00 ° ° o o p o p o p o 0 0 0 0 o p o p o p m y ° 00000 0 0 o OoOOOO co ... �-- �-. �-+ �-+ , -• `-, \O 00 00 J J ON O\ LA t!1 Ja W N �.+ --• A' O N ►- N i--. � �-. � N C, N � N .-• N w J �O �V � DD ` � 0 0 0 ° O ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° O ° O ° O ° O O (tQ 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° O ° O O O ° 0 0 CD y �I N N ►-+ ..• '-' p '- tG 00 00 J J ON O\ t!i p w N N -- N ,� W ,� � ,_, � N N �-. N .-. N ... � �--• � N � N � N �-. N C OO ` A O ` 0 0 0 0 ° O ° O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w t9 A 0 0 0 0 0 d rte+ n O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O m CD O O O b O C 00 00 J a\ to LA P � W W 00 as �N \, Nom-• W N N N N .�+ LA o ° oo^ 0000000 °po °po °p000000 o c. p H p o o p p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o _ N A O O �0 N 0 �\0,.. t j O '�O•, �O 'O�' �vO p' N O �O 00 tN 0 o ►-. �p N �p �N 0�p 0 0 8 �L A O O O O O Cl O O O O O O v e L ' CD � 00 00 J J O\ D\ to A W N N LA 00 N � W �. � �..,. � N N � N �-. N ►-• � �-• � N � N � N ..-. G b P O O� tp to `r O J w �O to 00 O W O � � O O O O O A p 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 O p O p O p O p 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O O O 42 Conceot a E Subdivisi n I T ■ ■ imeline , Proeess AN(Administration Recommendation) NUMBER OF DAYS (First PB meeting) (One month deferral) STAFF 1-----------45-----------75 (First PB meeting) (One month deferral) PLANNING 45-----------75------------105 BOARD NOTE; 1) Planning Board Recommendation has same timelines as above. 2) Different wording, same as previous regulations. PrPreliminary[ Plans 43 Subdivision Teline Process (Current Process) NUMBER OF DAYS (To P STAFF 1_____ gS tl•Y:� PB 85- 0.��< 130oe�Cbr — o (Decision by:) BOCC 175----------220 44 Prelimina Plans ubdivision Time line Process Administration Recommendation NUMBER OF DAYS (To Planning Brd) (1 month deferral) STAFF 1---------55-------85 (Same as current) (I" PB) (1 month deferral) (1 month deferral) (Shorter time) PB 55-------85---------115 (earliest date) (2nd date) (3rd date) BOCC 85---------115-------145-------> (90 days to be placed on an agenda) (Table pending further review) Planning Board recommends that after the item is placed on BOCC agenda the decision is to be made within 60 da-s. o•�lJ -�a�- Uza b. Text Amendments to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance Planning Director Craig Benedict made this presentation. He said that the text amendments that are being addressed in the ordinance refer directly to an item that was on the public hearing agenda on August 23, 1999 and involve the timeframe in which decisions must be made for both subdivisions and zoning. The original item that was brought before the public hearing removed all timelines for staff, Planning Board, and the County Commissioners. There were no deadlines on which decisions would have to be made. Based upon comments made at the public hearing, the staff sent notices out to the participants of the public hearing and sent additional notices out to another 20 developers and representatives in the area and met with them in October. Of the 30 notices that were sent out, only three showed up for discussion about the timelines. The staff then took the information to an ordinance review committee with the Planning Board to discuss the timelines. As the proposal came forward to the Planning Board,there were guidelines placed on the decision process for the staff and the Planning Board. One of the differences is that if a decision is not made within the timeframes, the item is considered approved without conditions. He said that the amendments now state that the item still moves forward, but with the original staff recommendations and the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Board explaining why a decision could not be made within the time period. The item must be heard by the County Commissioners within 90 days after the Planning Board hears it. The County Commissioners are allowed to table the item for a "reasonable amount of time." In addition, the language for an appeal has been modified to give a 15-day period of time for an appeal. Commissioner Brown clarified that the"reasonable amount of time"was not allowing the Board to put off the decision, but to ask legitimate questions and actually work on making a decision. Craig Benedict pointed out that the Planning Board recommends that after the item is placed on the Board of County Commissioners'agenda,the decision is to be made within 60 days. This is on the last page of the agenda abstract. This is not his recommendation, but the recommendation of the Planning Board. Commissioner Jacobs thanked the staff for giving the Board three proposals. He suggested that on the bottom of page 30 the wording should be clarified to say, "during deliberations and consideration of the application,the Board may defer consideration at any point to pursue additional analysis and review." Also, on page 27, section 4, the wording could be clarified to say, "The Planning Department shall notify the applicant of its action in writing." Commissioner Jacobs said that he does not agree with the Planning Board about having a 60-day deadline on the Board's decision. He made reference to the appeal of the preliminary plan of minor subdivisions and said that the Planning Board is saying that it should come back to them and the administration is saying that it should come back to the Board of County Commissioners. He asked if there was a difference between matters of interpretation of the subdivision regulations and policy issues related to the subdivision regulations. He does not think that the County Commissioners need to be involved in the appeal process unless it is a policy issue. Geoffrey Gledhill said that most of the appeals have to do with public versus private roads. Since staff is in tune with the County Commissioners on that issue, rarely is the staff denying a private road where it is justified under the regulations. He clarified that the Planning Board's role is as an advisory board and not a decision-making body. Commissioner Gordon asked if something is referred to the County Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendation would it be reasonable to refer it back to the Planning Board. Geoffrey Gledhill said that it would be reasonable. On page 33, section 30, about the application being sent by certified mail, she feels it should be left as certified mail so there is a receipt indicating that the application was sent. The Board agreed that the application should be sent by certified mail. Craig Benedict said that the staff has reviewed some of the State laws on advertising and they are suggesting, as they go through the comprehensive plan in the future,that there will be some very thorough and elaborate advertising guidelines. He would like to find other means of communication (i.e., internet, newspaper, etc.). He said that he would move the statement back to certified mail. Commissioner Brown feels it is important that the citizens are well served by these revisions. She would like to see something come back to the Board about public notification of development. She is concerned that there is not enough time for citizens to respond to development proposals. She made reference to section nine and asked why the concept plan was extended from one year to two years. Craig Benedict said that this would be a benefit to the developer because after a concept plan is received,there would be a longer time period to resubmit the preliminary plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the administration's recommendation for text amendments to subdivision regulations and the Zoning Ordinance with the addition of changes to the language from Commissioners Jacobs and the addition of sending applications by certified mail. VOTE: UNANIMOUS START HERE 10. REPORTS a. Reports—"A Now Consensus for Farmland Preservation"—Stakeholders Listing David Stancil said that this complies with the Commissioners'goals for this year. This is the first of three check-ins on the development of a new consensus for farmland,which is a program to develop a farmland preservation plan by the end of the calendar year so that the County would be in a position to request grant funds from the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund. He said that initially the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board came up with a large list of stakeholders and found it was impossible to list every civic organization related to farming. The Ag Board eventually pared the list down to nine sectors of stakeholders. The staff is asking the Board if they wish to add to or delete from this list of nine sectors. Commissioner Brown suggested adding the people who have already participated in protecting easements on their property to the list of stakeholders. This could be added in the land owners category. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was a limit to the amount of stakeholders. David Stancil said that he hopes they could attract around 50-60 people. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that part of the farmland preservation program look at the agricultural districts and how those might be strengthened. Also, he would like to work with the Economic Development Commission and try to generate some figures on what percentage of Orange County agriculture is locally based versus out-of-county sales. Commissioner Gordon said that the Aesthetic/Environmental category should be split into two categories. The Board agreed on this change. 13. CLOSED SESSION The Board was to go into closed session"to consider the qualifications, competence, performance,character,fitness,conditions of appointment,or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee;"NCGS 143-318.11(a)(6). The Board decided to postpone this issue to a future meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m., before the meeting instead of afterwards. The Clerk will poll the Board and find a suitable date in the near future to discuss this important matter. 14. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, a motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. The next meeting will be held on March 21, 2000 at the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Moses Carey Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk