Laserfiche WebLink
19. 3.6.2.2 - The conditional use rezoning requires a preliminary site plan. However when you examine <br /> the ordinance it is an extremely detailed site plan that is being requested and is actually titled "Major <br /> Site Plan" (B-10). There is tremendous expense associated with the development of such a plan, which <br /> seems unreasonable for such a discretionary review. This will lead small and medium projects to seek <br /> a straight rezoning. <br /> <br />The terms major and minor site plan refer to the type of process that each must go through <br />not the content of each plan. Current policy requires a detailed site plan for a conditional <br />use rezoning. <br /> <br />20. 3.6.2.4 - If there are two votes as written, is there a second vote in granting the conditional use permit? <br /> And if so ........ <br /> <br />In most cases, the Planning Commission will make the £mal decision on Conditional Use <br />Permits. Recommended text amendments will be forwarded to the County Commission'to <br />clarify who will make each type of decision. However, the County Commission could be <br />asked to.make a final determination on a Conditional Use application if a deeisign of the <br />Planning Commission is appealed. <br /> <br />21. 3.6.4.2 - Provides a provision to begin a rezoning back to the previous classification. This seems <br /> extreme especially if the imposed condition is found invalid or illegal and the applicant had nothing to <br /> do with it. Also, if the rezoning is being done and demonstrates the current zoning is not correct, how <br /> can it be zoned back against the earlier finding of fact. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission or Board of Commissioners made a conditional use rezoning <br />approval based on the conditions agreed to with the applicant. If a condition is found invalid <br />by the court system, the findings of fact may not be applicable. <br /> <br />22. 3.7 - What does "(based on changes in UDO organization)" mean? <br /> <br />· The Article numbering has changed through some drafts. This is just an editorial note to <br /> ensure that the final draft has the correct reference. <br /> <br />23. 3.7.2.2 - When you compare the requirements of a major site plan to the list of conditionally permitted <br /> uses as shown in the table of uses, the requirement is incred~le excessive. <br /> <br />The terms major and minor site plan refer to the type of process that each must go through <br />not the content of each plan. Current policy requires detailed site plans for a conditional use <br />permit. <br /> <br />24. 3.7.5 - Is the county adopting minor site plan review and approval of the City of Concord? This is <br /> how it currently reads in the ordinance (appandix B, Minor Site Plan). <br /> <br />· Changed City references to County. Each jurisdiction will appoint staff to a workgroup to <br /> come up wiffi common applications for each UDO process. <br /> <br />25. 3.7.5.1 - Reference to Appendix C does not appear to match anything. <br /> <br />· Needs to be changed. <br /> <br />26. 3.7.5.2- Reference to time linait does not appear to match with referenced Table 3.7-1. <br /> <br />· Reference needs to be updated. <br /> <br /> <br />