PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Present: Philippa Proulx, Linda Russell and Mike Tapager
Absent: Emily Hunt, Mike Harman, Tommy Bruguiere
County Attorney, Phil Payne, attended the meeting to review and answer
questions about several draft ordinance amendments under consideration.
PROPOSED REVISION OF 12-1 THROUGH 12-5 & ARTICLE 16/ARTICLE 13-1 THROUGH
13-7 – Mr. Payne said that there are some cumbersome procedural portions of
the ordinance that should be streamlined. He noted that Article 12/16 should
deal only with procedures with Article 13 dealing with site plan
requirements. He said that the goal, when developing the revisions, was to
determine the threshold for each level of application and what should be
required for each level. In addition, the revisions update and standardize
each category of application.
Article 12 – This section deals with procedures related to Zoning Permits
and Special & Conditional Use Permits. Commissioners requested that all
references to “the property owner” be changed to “all property owners”.
They asked whether there is a valid reason to have both Special and
Conditional Use Permits in the ordinance. Mr. Payne said that there is not,
that the ordinance could be amended to remove all references to Conditional
Use Permits. Commissioners also asked whether the time allowed for
Commission consideration of a permit could be extended from 90 days to 100
days to provide for additional time in months the calendar dates do not
allow for the full 90 days. Mr. Payne said that he had found no state code
that prohibited the change to 100 days.
Article 13 – This section deals with site plans. The revision proposes
requirements for minor and major site plans. Minor site plans would have
fewer requirements and would be approved administratively by the Planning
Director. Major site plans would require a preliminary and final site plan
for the larger developments and would be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission. Commissioners asked that all references to “the
property owner” be changed to “all property owners”.
Commissioners questioned the section under Major Site Plans that reads:
“Approved Preliminary and Final Site Plans shall be required when the
project:
1. Exceeds one acre of land-disturbed area, and
2. Is commercial or industrial in nature, or is a mobile home park, or
contains three (3) or more residential units on one lot, or is an
Intentional Community.”
Commissioners suggested that the requirement for a minor or major site plan
should be tied to the scale of the project rather than the type of use.
After further discussion, Commissioners agreed on the following change:
“Approved Preliminary and Final Site Plans shall be required when the
project:
1. Exceeds one acre of land-disturbed area and is commercial or
industrial in nature, or is a mobile home park, or contains three (3) or
more residential units on one lot, or is an Intentional Community, or
2. The total square footage of the building exceeds 5,000 sq ft,
excluding single-family residential and agricultural buildings.”
Mr. Payne also proposed revision to the Approval Procedures for plans to
clarify that an “official submission” (which starts the sixty calendar day
clock) is one that has been filed on the correct form in the proper office
accompanied by the fee and all pertinent information. He noted that the
sixty days cannot, by code, be changed to allow for more time for site plan
review by the Commission.
Mr. Payne will review and revise the draft based on the discussion for
further consideration by the Commission.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE/DAM BREAK INUNDATION ZONES – Mr.
Payne noted that the proposed draft is a simplified version of the mandated
state code version. The amendment deals with developments proposed within
the boundaries of a mapped dam break inundation zone. The Department of
Conservation and Recreation would conduct a review of the plan to determine
if it would change the spillway design flood standards of the impounding
structure. If it would, the development would not be permitted unless the
developer or subdivider altered the plan of development so that the spillway
was not altered or unless the developer contributes payments to the upgrade
to the dam structure. There are, however, questions about what requirements
could be imposed on the dam owner. Mr. Payne suggested that the issue be
tabled so that he can provide Commissioners with the actual state language.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12-12 – This section originally required a
special use permit for the placement of a mobile home. Mr. Payne suggested
that he review the section to determine if it could be removed altogether
since a SUP is no longer required for a manufactured home and since a
building permit is required for electric hookup.
COMMUNICATION TOWER ORDINANCE – tabled until all Commissioners available to
review the draft.
