HomeMy WebLinkAboutTA23-02 Public Comments and Responses1
Public Comments & Responses
Includes comments received during official public comment period of March 31, 2023 to April 24, 2023
Comment Provider Document & Sec�on Comment(s) Staff Response
Paramounte Engineering,
Allison Engebretson and Brad
Schuler
-Most comments were received
during a virtual mee�ng and are
not verba�m; Mr. Schuler did send
some writen clarifica�ons-those
are indicated by quota�on marks
UDO Text Amendment –
Sec�on 10.2.3.B (Applicability)
Can flexibility be allowed in situa�ons where a community informa�on mee�ng
is scheduled but due to an act of God is unable to occur? Some�mes applicants
need to be on a par�cular agenda due to contractual obliga�ons, and if the
mee�ng could occur within a certain �meframe prior to the mee�ng that would
be helpful.
“As it relates to flexibility on the �ming and no�ce of the mee�ng, the examples
we provided at the [virtual] mee�ng were ones we just thought of at that �me.
It is hard to predict every situa�on that would warrant some flexibility (who
would have thought of Covid?), so would prefer the current text allowing
flexibility to remain.”
While staff understands the desire for flexibility, the intent of the text amendment is
to ensure that community informa�on mee�ngs are held, and resident concerns are
considered, before a proposal is finalized. This may require community mee�ngs be
held further in advance of an applica�on deadline than is some�mes happening, and
this is recommended in the updated Administra�ve Guidelines. In order to address
the noted concerns, the language has been revised to allow a new community
mee�ng be held within the applica�on completeness review �meline in cases where
technical issues beyond the control of the applicant or isolated storm events cause a
previously scheduled mee�ng to be cancelled. Addi�onal guidance related to mee�ng
dates generally occurs for larger disasters or disrup�ve events, and it less appropriate
that applica�ons move forward without community mee�ngs when adjacent
residents are adap�ng to situa�ons such as hurricane recovery.
UDO Text Amendment –
Sec�on 10.2.3.C (Procedure)
Could no�fica�on also be provided by personal delivery? Some�mes applicants
would prefer to deliver no�ce personally to allow for discussions with adjacent
residents and property owners.
Hand delivered no�ce would meet the intent of the ordinance as long as the property
owner received the no�ce, and not just a tenant. The text amendment language has
been modified to allow for first class mailing and/or hand delivery to all property
owners within the prescribed no�fica�on area.
Request to clarify that the 500 �. no�fica�on ring is related to the tax parcel or
leased site subject to the development applica�on. Leased sites at the airport
were specifically men�oned as examples where large numbers of property
owners not impacted by a project might have to be no�fied if no�fica�on is
based just on the parcel of land.
No�fica�on requirements for community mee�ngs are not addressed in the General
Statutes but are currently intended to reflect the statutory no�fica�on requirements
for public hearings so that the same par�es no�fied about the public hearings have
already been made aware of the project. The ordinance standards for public hearing
no�ce require all property owners within 500 �. of the parcel of land be no�fied, so
the requested change would not include everyone who would receive no�ce of the
public hearing. As past department interpreta�on of the community informa�on
mee�ng no�ce have allowed for the reduced scope of mailings for leased sites, the
number of impacted proper�es is likely small, and the requested clarifica�on would
s�ll allow statutory requirements be met and impacted property owners be no�fied,
the requirement has been clarified to allow the no�fica�on to be for proper�es within
500 �. of the tax parcel or leased site, if applicable.
Is it necessary to require copies of returned mailings be provided with an
applica�on? Many �mes, undelivered leters are not returned by the post office
prior to the applica�on, and provision of undelivered leters would not impact
the no�fica�on requirements of the county. Request to at least modify the
provision to read ‘any returned mailings received as of the date of applica�on.’
“While the notes reference modifying the requirement to at least provide return
mailings received as of the date of applica�on, I s�ll take some issue with this as
the County does not provide this informa�on in the PB/BOC packets. Would
prefer if this requirement was removed from the proposal.
The intent of including the returned mailings is to allow staff and board members to
address ques�ons of residents who did not receive no�fica�on of the community
informa�on mee�ng. It would be helpful to have this informa�on, so the requirement
has been retained but amended to only require provision of copies of any returned
mailings received as of the date of applica�on.
2
Comment Provider Document & Sec�on Comment(s) Staff Response
Paramounte Engineering,
Allison Engebretson and Brad
Schuler
-Most comments were received
during a virtual mee�ng and are
not verba�m; Mr. Schuler did send
some writen clarifica�ons-those
are indicated by quota�on marks
UDO Text Amendment –
Sec�on 10.2.3.C (Procedure)
Ques�ons were asked regarding the role of the guidelines and whether they are
binding.
The guidelines operate in the same way as other administra�ve processes, such as
applica�on deadlines and applica�on requirements. They are intended to be rules,
but ones that are more flexible than ordinances. This will be clarified in the Purpose
statement of the Administra�ve Guidelines, and any language that is guiding rather
than a requirement will be noted as such in the guidelines.
Administra�ve Guidelines –
Mee�ng Scheduling
The �me and day guidelines may be overly rigorous for certain demographics
(assumes that adjacent residents work a regular business
This language may be more appropriate as a recommenda�on, rather than an
administra�ve rule. To ensure that applicants consider the demographics and most
appropriate mee�ng day and �me for adjacent property owners when scheduling
community informa�on mee�ngs, the applica�on form has been modified to require a
narra�ve describing this ra�onale.
Administra�ve Guidelines –
Mee�ng Content
Is it appropriate to have the applicant provide informa�on on the review process
or could this be provided via a link to the county website included in the
no�fica�on leter? Preference is to have a staff member atend the community
informa�on mee�ng.
The intent of this provision is to provide the mee�ng atendees with informa�on
regarding the next steps in the process. This has been clarified in the mee�ng
guidelines, but staff intends to provide addi�onal informa�on that can be available to
the public regarding the process on the website and available for applicants to provide
to atendees.
Administra�ve Guidelines –
Mee�ng Format
Since mee�ng materials are not always finalized at the �me the no�fica�on is
sent out, could the guidelines be modified to require that the no�fica�on include
the process for reques�ng mee�ng materials for anyone who is accessing the
mee�ng via telephone?
As staff has received no informa�on to date indica�ng that this is a problem with
community mee�ngs, the suggested change has been included in the administra�ve
guidelines and no�fica�on template. This may be revisited if future problems arise.
Given the difficulty of iden�fying in-person mee�ng venues that are convenient
and large enough for adjacent residents, requiring Planning & Land Use
Department approval of a venue may add an addi�onal barrier to the applicant,
especially without clear guidelines for department staff to use in determining
whether to approve.
This language has been revised and the requirement for staff pre-approval has been
removed, though this may be revisited if future problems arise. To ensure that
applicants consider the most appropriate mee�ng venue for adjacent property
owners when scheduling community informa�on mee�ngs, the applica�on form has
been modified to require a narra�ve describing this ra�onale.
Is requiring the applicant to provide masks at public mee�ngs reasonable or
necessary? This sec�on may not be necessary as local health requirements
would determine what is necessary based on the nature of the public health
concern and may not be necessary in outdoor venues.
This language has been revised to require compliance with local health direc�ves and
does not specify health accommoda�ons.
The ADA compliance requirement may be difficult to monitor and could rule out
mee�ngs on-site or in building such as religious assembly structures that
otherwise could be appropriate venues. Could this be phrased as a
recommenda�on?
This language has been revised to not refer to a specific set of accessibility
requirements. To ensure that applicants consider the needs of adjacent property
owners when scheduling community informa�on mee�ngs, the applica�on form has
been modified to require a narra�ve describing this ra�onale. This may be revisited if
future problems arise.
3
Comment Provider Document & Sec�on Comment(s) Staff Response
Paramounte Engineering,
Allison Engebretson and Brad
Schuler
-Most comments were received
during a virtual mee�ng and are
not verba�m; Mr. Schuler did send
some writen clarifica�ons-those
are indicated by quota�on marks
Administra�ve Guidelines –
Mee�ng Format
“The ‘safe and accessible parking’ standard seems also �ed to the ADA guideline.
Who is responsible for deciding what is ‘safe and accessible?’ Wouldn’t any
building that is allowed to be occupied today be already providing this?”
The intent of this requirement is to ensure that mee�ng atendees can conveniently
access the site, which may be on the subject site or park as well as a building. As with
the dra� ADA compliance requirement, this language has been revised, but to ensure
that applicants consider the needs of adjacent property owners when scheduling
community informa�on mee�ngs, the applica�on form has been modified to require a
narra�ve describing this ra�onale. This may be revised if future problems arise.
Request to clarify what in the guidelines is mandatory and what is
recommended.
The guidelines operate in the same way as other administra�ve processes, such as
applica�on deadlines and applica�on requirements. They are intended to be rules,
but ones that are more flexible than ordinances. This will be clarified in the Purpose
statement of the Administra�ve Guidelines and Community Informa�on Mee�ng
Report, and any language that is guiding rather than a requirement will be noted as
such in the guidelines.
Administra�ve Guidelines –
Mee�ng No�ce
Request that if maps showing the subject property and highligh�ng the parcels of
the property owners who are required to be no�fied is mandatory that it be
provided by the Planning & Land Use Department (at least upon request)
The purpose of this provision is to allow recipients of the leter to know who of their
neighbors may also have received the informa�on. To alleviate the burden for
applicants who are not professional land designers, atorneys, or engineers, the
guidelines have been updated to remove this provision but to require the applicant
provide the list of persons no�fied to the Planning & Land Use office as part of the
no�fica�on for the community mee�ng. This will allow staff to answer ques�ons that
adjacent property owners may have regarding who should have received no�fica�on.
If it is determined that the staff pre-approval of a loca�on is unreasonable and is
removed from the guidelines, (B) should be modified to reflect.
(B) has been removed.
Administra�ve Guidelines –
Post Mee�ng Procedures
Given the difficulty of ge�ng a sign-in sheet for a virtual mee�ng, especially large
ones, could a recording of the full community informa�on mee�ng be provided
instead? The provision in (A)(b) may not work for larger mee�ngs either.
While it may be difficult for applicants to get a full list of virtual atendees for large
mee�ngs, a recording of the full community informa�on mee�ng is not as accessible
for this type of informa�on as a provided list. The requirement that a list of names
and addresses of atendees be provided has been retained but for virtual mee�ngs
with over 50 atendees, applicants are allowed to provide a full recording as an
alterna�ve.
Administra�ve Guidelines –
Overall Document
“Overall, would prefer…[that the] guidelines [be] more of a ‘best community
mee�ng prac�ces’ document that could be provided to poten�al applicants and
not regulatory in nature.”
The intent of this document is to outline administra�ve requirements, so there will be
some regulatory language, though administra�ve rules by nature allow for more
flexibility than ordinance provisions. Language that is more appropriate as a guideline
or best prac�ce has been iden�fied as such, and the document has been revised.
No�fica�on Leter Template Could the informa�on on how to contact the Planning & Land Use Department
be more concise (perhaps handled by a link) in order to allow for one page
no�fica�on leters? Longer leters are less likely to be read in their professional
experience.
The template has been revised to provide more concise staff contact informa�on.