2000 - 02-21-00 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

® EMU 17 NICE 998® 0 0 3 The Board discussed options for approving proposed subdivisions that cannot meet various standards, such as minimum lot sires. Interim Planning Director Ron Satterfield told the Board that Article IV, Section C of the Lee County Subdivision Ordinance currently provides for subdivision variances when severe topographical or other conditions peculiar to the site exist, or strict adherence to the provisions of the ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship. Upon recommendation of the Planning Board, the Board of Commissioners may grant a variance to the tens of the ordinance, only to the extent that is absolutely necessary and not to an extent which would violate the intent of the ordinance. He told the Board that Mr. Rich Ducker at the Institute of Government was contacted and Mr. Ducker stated that local governments derive their authority to regulate subdivisions from state law. He said that the state law (General Statutes) does not give staff the authority to make quasi-judicial decisions and that standards should not require substantial interpretation by staff. Mr. Satterfield stated that the Board of Commissioners handle variances to subdivision regulations upon recommendation of the Planning Board on a case by case basis, as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Satterfield told the Board that this matter will be studied when the Unified Development Ordinance is finalized. No action was taken on the matter. The Board considered revisions to the Contract for Planning Services between the City of Sanford and the County of Lee. County Manager William Cowan discussed minor changes to the contract that are being proposed by himself and City Manager Leonard Barefoot. After some discussion, Commissioner SaUls moved to approve the revisions as outlined by Mr. Cowan. Upon a vote, the results were as follows: Aye: Adams, Gamer, Hincks, Matthews, Pascal, Reives, and SaLIIS Nay: None The Chairman ruled the motion had been adopted unanimously. The Board considered matters relating to the upcoming school bonds. County Attorney K. R. Hoyle outlined for the Board the bond order and proposed resolution. Commissioner Reives stated that he agreed that there was a need for a new high school and middle school. He is concerned that three of the veteran Board of Education members did not file for re-election this year. He stated that he did not feel comfortable in continuing with the school bond project at this time. He is very concerned that the current leadership of the Board of Education does not plan to see this project through. He stated further that the Board of Commissioners might want to consider looking at this project after the new Board of Education members have served for one year. He also stated that he is not in opposition to the bonds for the Central Carolina Community College. Commissioner Paschal introduced the bond order as follows: 3