Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff says Draft 2 reflects technical recommendations; council to send substantive amendments back for planning-board review
Summary
Planning staff told the committee Draft 2 incorporates most technical recommendations from the planning department; members and counsel agreed that substantive amendments may require returning the bill to the planning board for a public hearing under the zoning text-amendment rules.
Planning staff told the committee that Draft 2 of CB62 largely reflects the planning department’s technical staff report and recommended changes, but that the planning board had opposed Draft 1 and would need to review any new amendments.
Keisha Hall said planning’s map and comments had been provided earlier and that a formal planning-board review would be required if the committee adopted substantive amendments. Counsel and planning staff differed with some council members over drafting choices, including whether to use the terms “located” or “conducted” to describe a convenience-store use. Several members urged counsel and planning staff to resolve drafting inconsistencies and noted that the county’s zoning‑text amendment rules require the planning board to take a second look and hold a public hearing when substantive changes are introduced.
