COM 0229.000 2012-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To minimize abuse, however, criteria to allow these reliefs were also established. The Codes also identified what kind of variances can or cannot be granted. Thus,while the Director can grant a setback or a height variance, it would be prohibited from granting a variance or a PUD to allow, for example, a hotel in a single-family residential zone. That's clear that they cannot do it. Such a change, appropriately so,must go through the rezoning process, which means to the Commission and to the County Council. Thus,in summary, the Director administers and enforces the Zoning and Subdivision Codes adopted by the Council. If these are standards or areas where the Council finds that the variances or PUDs are not appropriate, it would be best to have them clearly defined in the Zoning or Subdivision Codes, rather than having the Council assume the administrative task of approving or denying the variances. The second item relates to the mater of efficiency. Prior to 1968 the County Charter, prior to the 1968 County Charter, the Planning Commission, this body actually, was the approving body of all subdivisions in this County. This function was delegated to the Planning Director in 1968 to relieve the Commission of being the administrator of the Subdivision Code, while reserving its time for acting on variance and recommending rezoning and other policy-related applications to the Council. Can you imagine if the Commission today were to review and act on over 500 subdivision applications annually? It would probably require a full-time commission. Now because processing variances dominated the Commission's agenda between 1968 and '78 and the realization that this was really an administrative function, the Charter was amended in1978 to relegate this function to the Planning Director. Checks,however, were put in to minimize abuse by increasing the role of the Board of Appeals. The Commission now had more time to focus on and act on major land use policy matters such as Special Permits, Use Permits, and making recommendations to the Council and Mayor on critical land use issues such as the CDPs or the General Plan. All of these require public hearings and, understandably, can be quite time-consuming. Bill 291 proposes to now have PUD applications (which is really like the variation of the variance) processed through the Commission and Council, purportedly to enable more public input. Such a move will again unnecessarily add to the burden of the Commission and Council and could further risk politicizing an issue,particularly since legislative actions are not appealable. On the other hand, retaining this function at the Director's level,with the appropriate checks afforded by the Board of AppealS,it provides a more efficient and fair approach to processing PUDs. In sum, if the intent of Bill 291 is to increase the opportunity for greater public input and beyond the current requirement of notices to surrounding property owners, etc., then the Director's proposal addresses this. The proposal mandates the applicant to hold a community meeting, and I think that's a good thing. On the other hand, if there are concerns regarding the outcome of the decisions on PUDs, then it would be more appropriate to have the Zoning or Subdivision Codes amended to further define what kind of exceptions can or cannot be considered and/or create new guidelines or standards. Just transferring what is normally an administrative function to the legislative branch does not necessarily address the concern and it could excessively politicize an issue. And that's the reason why I think what the Director is proposing is way better and, I think, is legally sound. Thank you very much. 5