Countywide : 3 on Planning Panel Fight Restructuring

A proposal to restructure Orange County’s land-management functions is facing opposition from County Planning Commission members who under the new system would see their workloads reduced to about half of present levels.

The plan, which calls for a division of work with a county zoning administrator, was criticized Tuesday by commission members as a “threat to the fairness and integrity of the system” that now leaves most decision-making authority to the five-member panel.

“I’m concerned that people will perceive that this is not fair,” said Commissioner Tom Moody. “When people come before a body and see that one person is making the decision, the perception is that it is a very arbitrary process.”

Moody joined Commission Chairman Roger D. Slates and Commissioner Chuck McBurney--a panel majority--in advising against the reorganization as proposed by Planning Director Thomas B. Matthews.

“I think we’re operating very well right now,” Slates said. “We’re getting the job done and most people seem to be happy. The real question is why at this time? I could see it if someone came in and said we were going to save half a million dollars.”

Matthews, however, said the reorganization was an attempt to bring more efficiency to a process that now offers many avenues of appeal, sometimes requiring action by the County Board of Supervisors.

Under the new plan, Matthews said, minor requests for modifications of existing development plans, which do not require formal approval by the commission, would be directed to a zoning administrator and could not be appealed to the board.

Requests of more critical importance, such as complete zone changes, environmental studies and general development plans, would remain within the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction.

A study of 308 items that came before the commission between Jan. 1, 1991, and Sept. 30, 1992, showed that 177 could have been handled by a zoning administrator, Matthews said, leaving the balance for the commission’s review.

“There is absolutely no intention to phase the (commission) out,” Matthews said. “The whole proposal is geared toward efficiency. The amount of time spent on the garden-variety issues can be very consuming.”

Matthews said the restructuring plan was also meant to place more of the commission’s emphasis on regional planning issues, such as habitat conservation and coordination of city planning issues.

As late as 1990, the county employed a zoning administrator to help the commission handle the crush of new development requests in those stronger economic times. Two years ago, those requests began to slow and the position of zoning administrator was no longer needed.

But as a result of the lean economy, Matthews said, more minor requests for modifications of existing developments are coming to the county. Those requests have cluttered the commission’s calendar and could more easily be addressed by a zoning administrator.

However, not all commissioners share Matthews’ belief.

“I could see (reinstating the zoning administrator) if it was like in the mid-’70s when things were booming,” Slates said. “Oh, boy, you just couldn’t imagine what it was like then. Now is not the appropriate time to reinstate a zoning administrator.”

Matthews said the reorganization plan and the proposed addition of a zoning administrator could be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval by December.