Laserfiche WebLink
With no one wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation, Committee Chair <br /> Davis turned the floor back to the Committee for further comment or main motions. <br /> Committeemember Jo M. Broden made a motion to send Bill No. 17-05 to the full Council with a <br /> favorable recommendation. This motion was seconded by Committeemember John Voorde and <br /> carried unanimously with a voice vote of four(4) ayes. <br /> Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston arrived at the meeting. <br /> Committee Chair Davis then turned the floor over to the presenters giving the briefing of <br /> notification boundaries. <br /> APC Briefing on Notification Boundaries <br /> Larry Magliozzi, Executive Director of the Area Plan Commission, stated, The impetus of this <br /> discussion is the request by the County Council to expand the notification of surrounding <br /> property owners from the three-hundred(300) foot buffer to something else. After some research <br /> done around the state,the staff established a proposed six hundred and sixty (660) feet as the <br /> next uptick to the boundary of notification. If we are going to do that for the County Council,the <br /> Commission has to change their bylaws in order to have that accomplished. We have a draft <br /> resolution to be discussed and possibly be voted on. Right now I am just making the rounds to <br /> other entities that may want to entertain the same expansion. This proposal dramatically <br /> increases the current boundary as well as significantly burdens the developer because they will <br /> have to pay for the postage and envelopes for the notification. We feel one of the advantages in <br /> the communities that the county doesn't have is the presence of neighborhood organizations. <br /> Committeemember Jerry Phipps asked, Have you given any consideration on varying the <br /> notification distance based on the zoning district that is requested? I can see where a community <br /> business zoning may deserve a much wider notification boundary, but residential rezoning may <br /> not affect as many people and might not need as large a boundary. <br /> Mr. Magliozzi replied, We have looked at that and some communities do that. Those <br /> communities have a very low volume of zoning and rezoning so they can afford to spend the <br /> time to institute that. For us, because we have to go through five (5) or six (6)petitions across the <br /> various jurisdictions every month and it can become problematic and inefficient. <br /> Committeemember Jo M. Broden stated, With neighborhood notification, I like the inclusion. <br /> What does that look like specifically? Who are you contacting? <br /> Mr. Magliozzi replied, The way it works is a list is developed from the tax records of people <br /> within the three hundred (3 00) feet. We generate the labels and that goes out roughly ten(10) <br /> days before the meeting. When there is a neighborhood association involved, we notify them <br /> right away when we get the petition in our office. Generally that is thirty(30) days before we <br /> send out the letters. The neighborhood association has sufficient time and several of them have <br /> list serves they use for notifications. I haven't heard any feedback from neighborhood <br /> organizations about wanting this changed so I can't speak to whether it works or doesn't work <br /> for them. We get our neighborhood list serve updated from the NRC. <br /> 2 <br />