HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-17-2012 - 6c 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 17, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. Co— C
SUBJECT: Review of Proposed UDO Text Amendment— Modification of Appeals Language
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, 245-2597
Amendment Outline Form (UDO/Zoning- Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2575
2012-04)
2. Ordinance Amendment
3. Draft Minutes - February 27, 2012
Quarterly Public Hearing
4. Draft Minutes - March 7, 2012 Planning
Board Meeting
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter
'UDO') text amendment.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding this amendment.
Public Hearing: There were no comments from BOCC, Planning Board members, or the
general public on this item.
Planning Director's Recommendation: Please refer to Section D of Attachment 1.
Planning Board Recommendation: Please refer to Section C.2 (a) of Attachment 1.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 in Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation of approval;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Adopt the Ordinance of Approval for the UDO text amendments contained within
Attachment 2.
Attachment 1
2 .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO /Zoning-2012-04
Amendment(s) addressing the statute of limitations for the appeal of BOCC decisions
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Land Use Element Map:-
From: - - -
To: - --
❑ Zoning Map:
From: -- -
To: - - -
❑ Other:
Text Amendments
❑ Comprehensive Plan Text:
_--.....__..................---._.._..._._._.__...__..........__......_..__._.....- .._....._.....__....__....._..-- ............_........_..........._........_.._................._..._................_. .................................._........._._....................................
._.. -...._
Section(s):
® UDO Text:
❑UDO General Text Changes
®UDO Development Standards
®UDO Development Approval Processes
._......._.................._..._..._...._..__................._.._._.._.._......_....--.....__......_._........._....._.__...... ..._....._.............._........................._....._.................._.........._._............... _............_........ ...-_................_............_........._.............._...........
Section(s): Section(s) 2.24.5 (B)
❑ Other:
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8. Zoning Atlas and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has
initiated a text amendment to modify existing language establishing the rights of local
citizens to appeal land use decisions by the County.
On June 27, 2011 the North Carolina General Assembly adopted Session Law 2011-
. .... .... . _ . . . ... _
1
. ........... .............. ........... ...................... ........... .................................
384 modifying the statute of limitations for the appeal of local government de cisson s.
The session law has the following impact:
1. Adoption of Ordinances modifying the County Zoning Atlas, the statute of
limitations on submitting the appeal has been lengthened from 30 to 60 days.
2. The law lengthens the statute of limitations from 2 months to 3 years for
suits alleging irregularities in ordinance adoption and clarifies that the timeline
to appeal begins from the date of ordinance adoption.
3. With respect to contesting the validity of text amendments, the statute of
limitations to file an appeal is extended from 2 months to I year. However,
the General Assembly has included language indicating that the 'period Of
appeal' does not even begin to run until the party, typically the property owner,
"first has standing to challenge the ordinance."
From staff's standpoint this practically extends the ability for an appeal to be 1
f 1
filed in perpetuity.
4. A final modification allows individuals to challenge the validity of an ordinance I
i
during appeals of enforcement actions regardless of how many years has I
passed since the ordinance was adopted. Prior to the adoption of this law,
North Carolina case law has held that a violator may not raise the possible I
invalidity of the ordinance violated as a defense to an enforcement action.
This is no longer the case.
1. Analysis
-................................................ .
.................................................................................................. ................. ........................... .......................... ....................................................................
The amendment is necessary to incorporate recent modifications to State law
concerning the rights of local citizens to appeal decisions by the local governing
board (Board of County Commissioners) from a legislative (i.e. text amendment,
rezoning, etc.) perspective. This would include the legislative (i.e. rezoning)
component of Conditional District applications.
The wording of the proposed amendment (Attachment 2 of the packet) has been
reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office.
............................. .........................................................I............................................I...................................................... ................
2. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
........................-1..................................................................................................... ...................... .........—--------I....................--............ ......
This is a house keeping item in order to ensure local regulations are consistent with
recently modified State regulations. There is no direct link to the Comprehensive
Plan for these amendments.
...... .............I................. ......... .... . .
3. New Statutes and Rules
.............................I........................... .......... ......................................................................................... ...................................... ............................................................................
Session Law 2011-384 revises several sections of the North Carolina General
Statutes changing the statute of limitations for various local government decisions.
2
4
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
November 1, 2011
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
February 27, 2012 — During the hearing, a BOCC member identified a typo within
the proposed amendment. Staff has corrected the error. No additional
comments were received concerning the proposal.
......_._..._................._._..._......._._.-...__._........._....__....._..._._.....__.._..._.........................._.......---
_._._...._.........---�_....._B000 Updates/Checkpoints......._.__........_.._...._..._........._..... --..._..._._._......_...._.._......_......__..._........................_.._......................_......
February 7, 2012 — approval of legal advertisement
April 17, 2012—receive Planning Board recommendation
d. Other
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
- -._....................-...._..._....---....._......................_......_..............._....._....._.................._...._...................._.._......._.._._..._...._.._..._......_......_...._...._.._...-._.._.._..---....._.....................__........_........._.._._.._......__............................_....._........
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements
a. Planning Board Review:
January 4, 2012 — Ordinance Review Committee (ORC). There were no
comments made by Board members over the proposal at the meeting.
March 7, 2012 — Planning Board Recommendation. At their March regular
meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed
amendment as contained within Attachment 2 of this package.
b. Advisory Boards:
c. Local Government Review:
d. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement will be published on February 15, and 22, 2012
e. Outreach:
3
❑ General Public: i Consistent with NC General Statutes and Orange County
:Ordinance requirements. i
❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup:
❑ Other:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
..............._.....__..__.._.--...._..............._....................._......._.................__.........._..._..._............................_._......_................................._..........._......_....._........._......._.............- ...--.._............_.............--............__............_.._......._........
_..._..
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the
provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid 11`11
from FY2011-12 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing Planning
staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required
to process this amendment.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning
Director is required to: 'cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon
that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and
the Board of County Commissioners'.
The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed amendment in an effort to
incorporate the aforementioned revisions to State law. The act creates a situation where
locally adopted regulations will be subject to juridical review and appeal for a far longer
period of time that previous statutes allowed.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
......_..._....................._..--................__...__...--.....__........_...................._......__........._.............._.._............._......_..... .._.__..__...........................---.........--.................-....._....._.........._.....-.........._._._...._.__._......._._......_._.......__........_..._........
.
Please refer to Attachment 2
Primary Staff Contact:
Michael D. Harvey
Planning
(919) 245-2597
mharvey @co.orange.nc.us
4
Ordinance 9: 2012- o) 2 ATTACHMENT 2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, there is a need to review and, as necessary, revise existing land use
regulations overtime, and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Planning Director is authorized to initiate text
amendments, and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2011 the State of North Carolina adopted Session Law
2011-384 modifying the statute of limitations for the appeal of legislative decisions
made by county governments, and
WHEREAS, the amendment is necessary to ensure compliance with recent
modifications to State law, and
WHEREAS, the County has held the required public hearing and has found the
proposed text amendment is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) of Orange County is hereby amended as follows:
RED = Proposed Text
StFik '°h = Deleted Text
Section 1, Section 2.24.5 (B) Board of Commissioners Decisions be amended as
follows:
(B) Legislative Decisions
(1) Legislative decisions made by the Board of County
Commissioners pursuant to the Ordinance shall be subject
to review at the request of any aggrieved party by the
Superior Court.
(2) The appeal to the Superior Court must be filed from the date
of adoption of said Ordinance within the prescribed period
//b��elow: 30-days-.Gf-th&,4l n --of4hA--d-ec e—n-of th BGarrl „f
wf}icit-vef--i-S-�.
(a) 60 days in cases involvinq the appeal of an Ordinance
amending the Zoning Atlas,
(b) 1 year (365 days) in cases involving the appeal of an
Ordinance amending the UDO,
(c) 3 years (1,035 days) in cases involvinq an appeal based
on an alleged defect in the adoption process of an
Ordinance amending the UDO
7
Section 2. That this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances.
Section 3. This ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of
said Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any
way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the
minutes of the said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
, 2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
ATTACHMENT
1
2 DRAFT MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 February 27, 2012
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
11 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
12 Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners
15 Valerie P. Foushee, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Alice M. Gordon
17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
19 Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the David Hunt(All other staff members will be identified
20 appropriately below)
21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Vice Chair Larry Wright,
22 Pete Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Johnny Randall, Andrea Rohrbacher,
23 Lisa Stuckey
24 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine
25 Mitchell, Alan Campbell
26
27
28 Unified Development Ordinance(UDO) Text Amendments-To review government-
29 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise Section 2.24 to incorporate
30 recently passed State legislation that modified the statute of limitations for the appeal of
31 local government decisions.
32
33 Michael Harvey presented this item. He said that the State has changed the appeal
34 deadline, and the deadline is now 60 days for issues related to the Zoning Atlas, 365 days for
35 issues involving the UDO, and 1,035 (3 years)for issues related to an alleged defect in the
36 UDO.
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
38 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
39 BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until
40 April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
41 submitted written comments.
42
43
44
DRAFT g
1
2 ATTACHMENT 4
3
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6 MARCH 7,2012
7 REGULAR MEETING
8 DRAFT
9
10 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), Eno Township Representative; Larry Wright (Vice-Chair), At-Large, Cedar
11 Grove Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township
12 Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township
13 Representative; Peter Hallenbeck,Cheeks Township Representative;Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham Township;
14
15
16 MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall,At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Representative;
17 Mark Marcoplos,At-Large, Bingham Township;Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
18
19
20 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, Michael Harvey, Current
21 Planning Supervisor, Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner, Terry Hackett, Stormwater Resource Officer, Deb ra
22 Graham,Administrative Assistant II
23
24
25 AGENDA ITEM 12: Unified Development Ordinance(UDO)Text Amendments-To make a recommendation to the
26 BOCC on govemment-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise Section 2.24 to
27 incorporate recently passed State legislation that modified the statute of limitations for the appeal of
28 local government decisions.This item was heard at the February 27,2012 quarterly public hearing.
29 Presenter: Michael Harvey,Current Planning Supervisor
30
31 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract.
32
33 Brian Crawford: What were some of your unintended consequences?
34
35 Michael Harvey: Basically,there is no such thing as a statute of limitations on appeals in my opinion. Citizens can legally
36 challenge the viability of an ordinance that has been in place for 20 years if they have just moved to an area and,
37 therefore, never had standing to challenge. If I am a new resident to Orange County I can now challenge adopted
38 regulations within the prescribed period of time referenced within the Statute because I now have standing to do so.
39
40 MOTION made by Lary Wright to approve staffs recommendation on page 204. Maxecine Mitchell seconded.
41 VOTE: Unanimous
42
43
44
1