HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-11-2012 - 5h
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:December 11, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No.5-h
SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development OrdinanceAmendment
Outline/Schedule for UDO Text Amendments to Revise Requirements Related
to Schools Adequate Public Facilities
DEPARTMENT:Attorney / Planning and PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)No
Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATION CONTACT:
Comprehensive Plan and Unified John Roberts, County Attorney, 919-245-2318
Development Ordinance Amendment Craig Benedict, Planning Director,919-245-
Outline Form (UDO/Zoning-2013-01)2592
PURPOSE:
To consider and approve the process components and schedulefor text
amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text, currently scheduled for the
February 25, 2013Quarterly Public Hearing.
BACKGROUND:
In August 2012 in the case of Lanvale Properties v. Cabarrus County, the
North Carolina Supreme Court struck down Cabarrus County’s adequate public facilities
ordinance(“APFO”).Although the majority focused on the fee aspect of Cabarrus County’s
ordinance, the Courtstruck down the entire ordinance, which included provisions for delaying
construction until school facilities could meet development demand. In striking down the
ordinance, the Court held “Without expressing an opinion on the policy merits of APFOs, we
stress that absent specific authority from the General Assembly, APFOs that effectively require
developers to pay an adequate public facilities fee to obtain development approval are invalid as
a matter of law.”
This holding appearstoleave room for APFOs that do not impose a fee but rather delay
development until such time as there are adequate school facilities to support the development.
However, the Supreme Court refused to consider a petition arguing that fact and asking the
Court to modify its holding by severing the fee provision of the Cabarrus County APFO and
allowing the other provisions to stand.
The attorneys for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Orange County met to discuss the
Court’s holding and the ramifications of the Court’s refusal to consider the petitionto modify its
decision. At thatmeeting the consensus among the attorneys was that theSchools Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance (“SAPFO”) and its accompanying memoranda should be amended to
remove the enforcement provisions, but that it could be left in place as a policy document. This
would involve eliminating the possibility that a Certificate of Adequate Public School Facilities
(“CAPS”) would be denied. The existing process would remain in effect; however, there would
2
be no possibility of halting development based on lack of a CAPS. As an alternative,in
situations where there wasnot adequate capacity in the schools, the school boards would
approve CAPS and would report to the local government partners that capacity had been
exceeded and new school facilities were needed to meet demand.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Please refer to SectionC.3 of Attachment.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
The Manager recommends the Board approve the attached
Amendment Outline form and direct staff to proceed accordingly.
3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENTOUTLINE
UDO / Zoning-2013-01
Modify Memorandum of Understanding for Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance (SAPFO) and modify or remove regulatory requirements in the UDO related
to same
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 GeneralText Changes
UDO Development Standards
UDO Development Approval Processes
6.19 and possibly other sections (document willbe searched to
Section(s):
determine sections that refer to SAPFO or CAPS (Certificate of
Adequate Public Schools)
Other:Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding
B.RATIONALE
1.Purpose/Mission
To remove the requirement that project applicants obtain a Certificate of Adequate
Public Schools (CAPS) from the applicable school district prior to issuance of a
1
4
Certificate of Occupancy. The County Attorney, through discussions with the
attorneys for Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough, and a review of the recent
Supreme Court decision in Lanvale Properties v. Cabarrus County, which struck
down as unauthorized by law Cabarrus County’s adequate public facilities ordinance,
has determined that the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance should be
amended.
2.Analysis
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 required analysis for the UDO
text amendment will be available prior to the public hearing.
3.Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinanceis addressed on page 8-42 of the
Comprehensive Plan.Objective E-1 also pertains to the SAPFO.
4.New Statutes and Rules
Lanvale Properties, LLC and Cabarrus County Building Industry Association v.
County of Cabarrus and City of Locust, 731 S.E. 2d 800 (2012).
C. PROCESS
1.TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a.BOCC Authorization to Proceed
December 11, 2012
b.Quarterly Public Hearing
February 25,2013
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
February 5, 2013 –Approval of legal ad
April 9,2013–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
2
5
a.Planning Board Review:
March 6, 2013(recommendation)
b.Advisory Boards:
N/A
c. Local Government Review:
This item will be discussed at the The schools systemswill be
Assembly of Governments meeting on provided this information via
December 6, 2012.communication from the County
Attorney.
d.Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement will be published on February 10and 17 in the Chapel Hill
Herald and on February 13 and 20in the News of Orange.
e.Outreach:
General Public:
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
from FY2012-13Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing Legal and
Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work
required to process this amendment.
D.AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
Approval of this amendment will remove the Certificate of Adequate Public Schools
(CAPS) denial provisionas part of the development approval processwhen school
capacity is exceeded.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
“The specific language will be available as part of the public hearing materials.”
3
6
Primary Staff Contact:
John Roberts, County Attorney, 919-245-2318
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 919-245-
2592
4