2013-02-21 Leeward Exh A - Director Initiated Amend re PUD

Home

alternative to Bill 291, the Director is proposing a bill that is the subject of today’s meeting, and the bill would require applicants to conduct a community meeting prior to submitting a P.U.D. application, and secondly, to ensure that the P.U.D. development must be consistent with the intent of community development plans for the particular area. So there were components within Bill 291 that we thought were very reasonable and would actually enhance public interaction and involvement within the P.U.D. review process. Holding a community meeting prior to the submittal of a P.U.D. application is both beneficial to the applicant and the community, because it allows for the community’s concerns to be identified early on in the process so that the applicant can then amend their development plan as needed prior to its formal submission to the Planning Department. And I should note the bill as drafted would require that the community meeting be held no more than 60 days prior to the submittal of the application; so it kind of remains fresh. And this is a graph just showing the process as being proposed by the Planning Director where the applicant in the first box would conduct the community meetings in order to solicit those comments and concerns from the community, and then the notice of filing of the application in the newspapers, the posting of a sign on the property, and notice of the meeting to surrounding property owners will follow the same track as currently required under the current P.U.D. process. And then finally, the Director will be making a decision on the P.U.D. application, taking into account all of the comments collected during the review process, as well as part of, as was solicited during the prior community meeting. So with that said, the Planning Director is offering her version of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code regarding Planned Unit Developments. With that, I stand ready to answer any questions. GIFFIN: Thank you. Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, I just wanted to add for the information of the audience that one thing that is not up there is it’s not just the notice is mailed to the surrounding property owners; when the Department receives the application, we routinely send it out to other departments and agencies for review and comment, and typically we give them about 30 days to respond to us. So we get comments from DEM that might be on whether there is a solid waste management plan or whether there is a sewer system. We might get comments from DPW on the roads and the variances that are applied for there. And we take those into consideration before coming up with a recommendation. The other thing that’s missing there is that any decision of the director can be appealed to the Board of Appeals. The difference with the County Council decision, Bill 291, is that an appeal from the County Council goes immediately to Circuit Court. With our system, planning director’s decisions go to Board of Appeals, and then if the result is not to the liking of any of the parties, then it can go to Circuit Court from there. GIFFIN: Thank you. And thank you, Daryn. Daryn, did you want to add something? ARAI: Sure, very quickly. My apologies. I failed to mention that we did receive some communication just prior to today’s hearing. One of them was a letter from Cory Harden that also included testimonies from some other individuals; that was provided to you, you should have hardcopies before you. Another was a letter from Mac McInnis, that was dated February 19; copies again have been provided to you. And finally – oh, I’m sorry – we also have a letter from Normita Error; copies were provided to you. I also – and I’m not sure why I don’t have it right in front of 3 EXHIBIT A