HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-09-2013 - C3ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND
PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 9, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. C.3
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Governmental
Uses
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245 -2597
Development Ordinance Outline Form Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245 -2575
(UDO & Zoning 2013 -03)
2. UDO Text Amendment Package
3. July 10, 2013 ORC Meeting Notes
4. Staff Review Comments
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on Planning Director initiated text amendments to require
a neighborhood information meeting be held prior to the development of `governmental uses' as
detailed within the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The amendment also involves the
renumbering of existing sections and updating of references throughout the document.
BACKGROUND: The anticipated development of a volunteer fire department substation off of
Neville Road has caused local residents to voice concern over a lack of notification or participation in
the process to develop the aforementioned facility. Such uses are a permitted use of property (i.e.
staff review and action) falling into the `Governmental Uses' land use category as detailed within
Section 5.2 of the UDO. Neither the County nor the applicant is required to notify adjacent property
owners of the project as it is considered to be a permitted use (i.e. permitted by right).
In both internal discussions, and review with several BOCC members, it has been decided to
promote additional public involvement with the development of `governmental uses'. As a result, the
proposed text amendment requires a neighborhood information meeting to be held for all land uses
falling into the `governmental uses' land use category to allow the general public to be made aware
of the project and offer comment.
Attachment 1 provides additional background on the proposal. Attachment 2 contains the proposed
amendments in a "track changes" format (red text for proposed additions and red StFikethrr„ @1 for
proposed deletions).
Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) Review: The Planning Board ORC reviewed the proposed
amendments at its July 10, 2013 ORC meeting. Please refer to Section C.2 (a) of Attachment 1 and
Attachment 3 for a summary of the Board member's comments.
2
The required Planning Director analysis is contained in Section B.2 of Attachment 1.
Notification Procedural Requirements: Legal ads for the public hearing were placed in a
newspaper of general circulation in the County in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Please refer to Section C.3 of Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and
attachments.
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed amendments.
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
to the BOCC in time for the November 5, 2013 BOCC regular meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Attachment 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning- 2013 -03
3
Amendment(s) requiring a neighborhood information meeting prior to the issuance of
a permit allowing for the development of a governmental land use
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Land Use Element Map:
From:
To:
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): 1. Create a new Section 2.24 entitled Governmental Uses
establishing new procedural requirement(s) for the land use
category.
2. Renumber Existing Section(s) 2.24 and 2.25.
3. Update existing references throughout the UDO.
4. Modify language within Section 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses
— Economic Development Districts to ensure uniformity within
the UDO with respect to denoting the `Governmental Uses'
land use category.
1
❑ Other:
B. RATIONALE
El
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 require that a neighborhood information meeting be
held prior to any action authorizing the development of a governmental land use
within the County's planning jurisdiction.
The anticipated development of a fire department substation off of Neville Road has
caused local residents to voice concern over a lack of notification or participation in the
process to develop the aforementioned facility.
A volunteer fire department falls within the Governmental Use land use category, as
detailed within Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO, and is considered to be
a permitted use of property. Permitted uses are handled administratively (i.e. staff
review) with no public outreach required by the UDO.
The Governmental Use land use category includes the following:
a. Government Facilities and Office Buildings
b. Government Protective Services (Police and Fire Stations) Rescue Squads,
Volunteer Fire Departments
c. Military Installations (National Guard and Reserve, Armory)
In order to address a concern over a lack of public involvement with `governmental uses'
the Planning Director proposes to modify the UDO to require a neighborhood information
meeting to allow the general public to be made aware of such applications and offer
comment.
Please note this amendment, as currently written, will not impact those uses listed in
Section 5.1.2 Uses Permitted As a Matter of Right of the UDO. This would include:
utilities (i.e. electric, telephone, gas, cable, sewer, water, etc.), borrow pits associated
with State /federal highway projects, or solid waste collection facilities owned /operated by
a public agency.
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Orange County 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 proposed amendment is designed to address a concern over a lack of notification
and involvement of the general public with respect to the development of governmental
uses throughout the County's planning jurisdiction.
If approved, the amendment will require a neighborhood information meeting prior to any
action by the County to review a development request in the hopes the applicant can
2
address local property owner concerns.
It should be noted this amendment, if approved, will likely extend the development review
period for such projects by several weeks. Further State and Federal agencies are
typically exempt from local land use regulations. As a result the development of a
government facility by a State or Federal agency would not be subject to this new
requirement.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Objective LU -6 -1: Undertake a comprehensive effort to inform and involve the
citizens of Orange County in the land use planning process.
4. New Statutes and Rules
C. PROCESS
1. TIM EFRAME /MILESTONES /DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
June 18, 2013
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
September 9, 2013
c. BOCC Updates /Checkpoints
June 18, 2013 — BOCC members approved the legal advertisement for the
September 9, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing.
July 10, 2013 — Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
September 9, 2013 — Quarterly Public Hearing.
November 5, 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.
a. Planning Board Review:
3
5
July 10, 2013 — Ordinance Review Committee (ORC).
0
A Planning Board member expressed concern over the proposed
amendment indicating he believed this was an unnecessary political
reaction arising out of objections to the development of a volunteer fire
department substation off of Neville Road.
Further, it was suggested this amendment would have a negative impact
on local volunteer fire departments who do not have the necessary budget
or meeting facilities to comply with the proposal.
There were no suggested amendments made by members.
Chair Hallenbeck suggested individual members put their concerns in
writing for staff and the BOCC to address at the appropriate time. To date
no written comments have been received.
Please refer to Attachment 3 for additional information.
October 2, 2013 — Recommendation
b. Advisory Boards:
c. Local Government Review:
d. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement will be published in accordance with the provisions of the
UDO.
e. Outreach:
❑ General Public:
❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup:
® Other: Letter /e -mail sent to various County agencies (i.e. DEAPR, Asset
Management, Solid Waste, etc.) and other local entities (i.e. local
volunteer fire departments and rescue squads) potentially impacted
by the proposal outlining the amendment and soliciting comments for
inclusion within the QPH package.
An e -mail was sent to various County Departments on June 24, 2013
requested review of the proposed amendment(s).
Responses from DEAPR and Solid Waste expressed concern over a
potential duplication of efforts as there is typically significant public
outreach on various projects (i.e. parks, solid waste convenience
centers, etc.) Staff added language to the proposed amendment
address this concern by eliminating the neighborhood information
11
meeting requirement in those instances where the project was part of
a `previous planning effort' that included public outreach and review
of a proposed development.
Please refer to Attachment 4 for additional information.
An e -mail was sent on August 5, 2013 to all local volunteer fire chiefs
as well as public safety agencies throughout the County (i.e. Sheriff,
Town of Chapel Hill Police /Fire, Town of Carrboro Police /Fire, Town
of Hillsborough Police /Fire, etc.) requesting comments on the
proposed amendment.
To date no comments have been received.
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Coordination and attendance at the information meeting by staff shall be handled
within existing budgetary outlays. The cost associated with the notification of the
information meeting shall be borne by the applicant.
Additional budgetary outlays to cover the costs of a mailing will be required by any
County department or applicable agency (i.e. volunteer fire department) proposing a
governmental land use.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
If approved, the development of a governmental use will require that a neighborhood
information meeting be held prior to the issuance of a permit. As previously indicated
this will likely extend the site plan review process by several weeks.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Please refer to Attachment 2.
Primary Staff Contact:
Michael D. Harvey
Planning
(919) 245 -2597
mharvey @orangecountync.gov
5
7
0
Attachment 2
UDO AMENDMENT PACKET NOTES:
The following packet details staff's proposed modifications to existing regulations establishing a
requirement for a neighborhood information meeting prior to the submittal of a site plan
proposing the development of a governmental land use. The amendment package also proposes
the re- numbering of 2 existing sections, to accommodate the new standards, and updates existing
references throughout the UDO.
As the number of affected pages /sections of the existing UDO are being modified with this
proposal staff has divided the proposed amendments into the following color coded
classifications:
• Red Underlined Text: Denotes new, proposed text, that staff is suggesting be
added to the UDO
• Red St44ked.,-,,,,g Text: Denotes existing text that staff is proposing to delete
Staff has included footnotes within the amendment package to provide additional
information/rationale concerning the proposed amendments to aid in your review.
Only those pages of the UDO impacted by the proposed modification(s) have been included
within this packet. Some text on the following pages has a large "X" through it to denote that
these sections are not part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only
because in the full UDO it is on the same page as text proposed for amendment or footnotes from
previous sections `spill over' onto the included page. Text with a large "X" is not proposed for
modification.
Please note that the page numbers in this amendment packet may or may not necessarily
correspond to the page numbers in the adopted UDO because adding text may shift all of
the text /sections downward.
Users are reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that
regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available online at:
http://ora,ngecountync.gov/pla,nning/Ordinances.asp
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.22: Home Occupations
There are no changes iral stormwater measures that are designed, constructed and m51w, ned
proposed on this page. It Irdance with the NC DWQ Stormwater BMP Design Manual,,,approved
is included to provide ting tool, and requirements listed in Section 6.14 will be sumed to meet
uired performance standards of Section 6.14. Sui s containing
context for the next page res not designed to these specifications, may be bmproved on a case by
asis provided the applicant provides adequa data and information
Z11 IUVV III[ ow <the e viations meet the requirem s of Section 6.14.
(C) Plan Approval
The Erosion Control Officer i uthorized pprove any Stormwater Management Plan
which is in conformance with the rf ance standards specified in the NC DWQ
Stormwater BMP Design Manual her requirements of this Ordinance.
(D) Approved Plan a Prereq . e
The Erosion Control icer is not authorized to is any permits for development on
any land that is fined as new development under Se i n 6.14 of this Ordinance
unless and it a Stormwater Management Plan in compli e with the requirements of
this Or ' nce has been approved.
(E) D ign of Permanent Nutrient Export Reduction Structural Stor ter Measures
When a permanent nutrient export reduction structural stormwater measure equired
for new development to meet the requirements of this Ordinance, a North Caroli
registered professional engineer shall prepare the plan with the Engineer's Certificati of
Stormwater Management affixed, signed, sealed and dated.
2.22.1 Application Requirements
(A) An application for a Home Occupation Permit shall be filed with the Planning Director on
forms provided by the Planning Department.
(B) Application forms shall be prepared so that when completed a full and accurate
description of the proposed use, including its location, appearance, and operational
characteristics are disclosed.
(C) An application shall include a plot plan that adheres to the requirements of Sections 2.4.3
and 5.5.3.
2.22.2 Conditions of Approval
(A) If conditions are attached to the approval of a permit, they may address deficiencies in
meeting specific Ordinance requirements or they may address specific impacts which
result from the operation of the home occupation.
(B) If conditions address specific impacts which result from the operation of the home
occupation, the conditions may include, but not be limited to the following limitations:
(1) Hours of operation;
(2) Number of vehicles to be parked on the premises;
(3) The location of an accessory building, storage area or parking on the property.
(C) The Planning Director may require greater setbacks and /or additional landscaping or
screening to adequately screen the home occupation from adjoining properties.
2.22.3 Application Approval
(A) If the application is approved, either with or without conditions, the Planning Director shall
send the applicant a permit letter informing him /her of the approval and of the
requirements of the Ordinance that apply to the home occupation.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -63
0
Article 2: Procedures 10
Section 2.23: Day Care Center in a Residence
(B) The permit letter must be signed by the applicant to indicate his /her willingness to
operate the home occupation in conformance with the requirements and conditions set
forth in the permit letter.
(C) Each permit letter shall be kept on file by the Planning Director and shall constitute the
Home Occupation Permit for the particular use in question.
(D) The home occupation may be operated by the applicant as long as it is operated in
conformance with the requirements and conditions set forth in the permit letter.
2.22.4 Application Denial
If the application is denied, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant of the denial and shall
state the reasons for denial in writing.
2.22.5 Appeals
The applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning Director to the Board of Adjustment as set
forth in Section 2.25 2.27.'
2.23.1 Application Requirements
(A) An application for a day care center in a residence for 3 to 12 children shall be filed with
the Planning Director on forms provided by the Planning Department.
(B) Application forms shall be prepared so that when completed a full and accurate
description of the proposed use, including its location, appearance, and operational
characteristics are disclosed.
(C) An application shall include a plot plan that adheres to the requirements of Sections 2.4.3
and 5.8.1.
2.23.2 Application Review
Upon a determination that the application is complete, the Planning Director shall cause a review
of the application to be made. The review shall determine if the proposed day care center in a
residence for 3 to 12 children conforms with all requirements of this Ordinance. Based on the
review, the application will be approved, approved with conditions, or denied.
2.23.3 Conditions of Approval
(A) If conditions are attached to the approval, they may address deficiencies in meeting
specific chapter requirements or they may address specific impacts which result from the
operation of the day care center in a residence for 3 to 12 children.
(B) If conditions address specific impacts which result from the operation of the home
occupation, the conditions may include, but not be limited to the following limitations:
(1) Hours of operation;
(2) Location of play area;
(3) Number of vehicles to be parked on the premises;
(4) The location of a storage area or parking on the property.
(C) The Planning Director may require greater setbacks and /or additional landscaping or
screening to adequately screen the day care center in a residence for 3 to 12 children
from adjoining properties.
' Staff is update references based on the proposed amendment throughout the document.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -64
Article 2: Procedures 11
Section 2.24: governmental uses
2.23.4 Application Approval
(A) If the application is approved, either with or without conditions, the Planning Director shall
send the applicant a letter informing him or her of the approval and of the requirements of
this Ordinance that apply to the day care center in a residence for 3 to 12 children
(B) The letter must be signed by the applicant to indicate his or her willingness to operate the
day care center in a residence for 3 to 12 children in conformance with the requirements
and conditions set forth in the letter.
(C) Each letter shall be kept on file by the Planning Director and shall constitute the approval
for the day care center in a residence for 3 to 12 children in question.
2.23.5 Application Denial
If the application is denied, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant of the denial and shall
state the reasons for denial in writing.
2.23.6 Annual Review
Each day care center in a residence for 3 to 12 children approved by the Planning Director shall
be reviewed annually by the Planning Director to assure compliance with the standards of
evaluation for such facilities.
2.23.7 Minor Chanqes to
The Planning Director is authorized to approve minor changes in the approved day care center in
a residence for 3 to 12 children, provided that the changes are in harmony with the action of the
original approval and provided that any change in the operation complies with the standards of
evaluation as specified in Section 5.8.1.
2.23.8 Changes in Operation
Any change in the operation of the day care center in a residence for 3 to 12 children that does
not comply with the standards for evaluation as specified in Section 5.8.1 shall constitute a
modification and shall require the approval of a Class B Special Use Permit by the Board of
Adjustment under the provisions of Section 2.7 of this Ordinance.
2.23.9 Appeals
The applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning Director to the Board of Adjustment as set
forth in Section�5 2.27.
2.24.1 Applicability
The following applies to those land uses permitted within the Governmental Uses land use
category as detailed within Section 5.2.
2 This section will require a neighborhood information meeting for all land uses permitted within the `Governmental
Uses' land use category prior to the formal submittal of a site plan application to the Planning Department if the
project has not been formerly subject to public comment.
s This section was added at the suggestion of the County Attorney's office to clarify which `governmental uses' the
meeting requirements would apply to. There was a concern utility development, detailed within Section 5.1.2, could
have somehow been interpreted as having to abide by these standards as well.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -65
Article 2: Procedures 12
Section 2.25: Review of Environmental Documents
2.24.2 Neighborhood Information Meeting
(A) If a proposed project has not been a part of a previous planning effort that included the
opportunity for public comment and input, a neighborhood information meeting shall be
held prior to the submittal of a site plan application. The purpose of this meeting is to
obtain surrounding property owner input and comments on the proposed development.
(1) Examples of planning efforts that generally include the opportunity for public
input are: park master plans, small area plans, solid waste management master
Plans, library master plans, etc.
(B) The Planning Department shall assist the applicant with the scheduling of the
neighborhood information meeting.
C) The applicant shall obtain property owner mailina address information from the Plannin
Department, who shall utilize Orange County Land Records data, and shall mail certified
notices of the meeting date, place, and time to each property owner within 500 feet of the
subject property.
(D) The notices shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the meeting. s
(E) The applicant shall post a sign on the property advertising the date, place, and time of the
meeting a minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the meeting.
(F) The applicant is required to submit copies of the certified mail receipts denoting the date
of the mailing as well as a synopsis of comments from the meeting as part of the site plan
application. The applicant shall also provide a written response on what steps, if any,
were taken to address said comments.
(G) A neighborhood information meeting shall not be required in cases where an applicant is
proposing to expand facilities less than 50% of existing floor area.
224 12.25.1 Environmental Assessment
(A) Generally
An Environmental Assessment ( "EA" in this section) may be submitted prior to submittal
of the development application to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIS"
in this section) may be required, provided that:
(1) All information necessary to perform the Assessment is provided, and
(2) The project application, when submitted, is consistent with the project described
in the Assessment.
(B) Review Process
(1) The Planning Department shall review the EA for completeness within 5 calendar
days of the date of submittal.
(2) If the EA is found to be incomplete, it shall be returned to the applicant with
notification of its deficiencies.
4 Many County Departments such as DEAPR, Solid Waste, Asset Management, and the Library already do public
outreach meetings for their projects. Staff believes it is unnecessary to duplicate these outreach efforts as part of the
site plan submittal process.
' Planning staff assists all applicants who are required to hold neighborhood information meetings. This includes
those applicants proposing a Major Subdivision, Conditional Use, and Conditional Zoning projects.
6 This is consistent with existing requirements for other neighborhood information meetings required by the UDO.
' Section is being renumbered and references are being updated throughout the UDO.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -66
Article 2: Procedures 13
Section 2.25: Review of Environmental Documents
(3) Upon acceptance of a complete EA, the applicant shall submit 10 copies to the
Planning Department. Additional copies may be required if needed. The EA will
be distributed by the Planning Department to other appropriate departments and
agencies for review and comment.
(4) Final Action on the EA shall occur within 14 days from the date of acceptance, or
such longer time as agreed to in writing by the applicant.
(5) If the EA reveals no "significant environmental impacts ", as that term is defined in
this Ordinance, the Planning Department shall issue a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
(6) If significant impacts are identified, the Planning Department shall issue a Finding
of Significant Impact and shall require that an Environmental Impact Statement
be prepared. The decision of the Planning Department shall be reviewed by the
County Manager upon request of the applicant or Planning Department.
(7) The applicant shall be notified if the Planning Department learns of any additional
state or local permits which may be required to conduct the proposed activity.
(8) Agencies the Planning Department has knowledge of potentially requiring
additional permits shall be notified of the proposed activity by the Planning
Department and shall have an opportunity to provide comments.
224 22.25.2 Environmental Impact Statements
(A) Review Process
(1) The Planning Department shall review the EIS for completeness within 5 working
days of submittal.
(2) If the EIS is found to be incomplete, it shall be returned to the applicant with
notification of its deficiencies.
(3) Upon acceptance of a complete EIS, the applicant shall submit 10 copies to the
Planning Department. Additional copies may be required if needed. The EIS will
be distributed by the Planning Department to other appropriate departments and
agencies for review and comment.
(4) A notice shall be placed by the Planning Department in a newspaper of general
circulation, stating that the EIS will be available for public review at the Planning
Department for a period of at least 15 days.
(5) If the proposed activity requires a Mining Permit from the State of North Carolina,
or involves the storage of hazardous materials, the EIS shall also be sent to the
State Clearinghouse for distribution and review pursuant to Title I, Chapter 25,
Section .0200 of the North Carolina Administrative Code.
(6) If an EIS prepared for a State or Federal agency has completed the Federal or
State Environmental Review process, including publication in the "Environmental
Bulletin" then the EIS and any required addendum thereto shall be advertised as
available for public review at the Planning Department, but need not be re-
circulated through the State Clearinghouse.
(7) Upon Completion of the advertised 15 -day review period, and upon receipt of
comments from the State Clearinghouse when applicable, all comments will be
compiled and summarized by Planning Staff.
(B) Public Hearing Required
(1) The EIS, along with all comments received during the review period, shall be
presented for public hearing concurrently with the development project.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -67
Article 2: Procedures 14
Section 2.26: Appeals
(2) If a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners is not required for
approval of the development project, then a special hearing shall be scheduled.
The hearing shall take place no later than 30 days after the close of the public
review period or receipt of comments from the State Clearinghouse, whichever is
later.
(C) Notice of Public Hearing
(1) Notice of the public hearing to review the EIS and receive public comment shall
be published at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county,
stating the time and place of the hearing.
(2) Said notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the
first notice appearing not less than ten nor more than 25 days before the date set
for the public hearing. In computing the notice period, the day of publication is
not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be included.
(D) Board of County Commissioners Action
(1) The Board of County Commissioners shall receive the EIS and all comments as
information only. The information presented may be used only to determine
compliance with specific development standards established in this Ordinance.
(2) No action shall be taken on the development project until after the EIS has been
presented to the Board of County Commissioners.
(E) Effect on Other Permits and Actions
Construction or installation of any major development project shall not commence until
subsequent to the filing of a Finding of No Significant Impact or acceptance of the Final
EIS by the Board of County Commissioners.
212.26.1 Generally
Appeal applications shall be filed in accordance with Section 2.2 within 30 days of the decision
being appealed on forms provided by the Planning Department, if applicable.
222.26.2 Planning Director Decisions
(A) Site Plans or Other Decision Pertaining to this Ordinance
Any decision of the Planning Director regarding a site plan application or other decision
pertaining to this Ordinance not listed in (B) through (D) below may be appealed to the
Board of Adjustment according to the provisions set forth in Section 2.12 of this
Ordinance.
(1) An appeal to the Board of Adjustment from a decision or determination of the
Planning Director stays all proceedings in furtherance of the decision or
determination appealed from, except:
(a) Situations that, in the opinion of the Planning Director, a stay would
cause imminent peril to life and /or property.
(b) That the situation appealed from is transitory in nature and, therefore, an
appeal would seriously interfere with enforcement of the Ordinance.
In either instance in (a) and (b) above, the Planning Director shall place in
certificate the facts to support the conclusion.
(B) Exempt Subdivisions
s Section renumbered and references are being updated throughout the UDO.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -68
Article 2: Procedures 15
Section 2.26: Appeals
(1) The decision of the Planning Director regarding an exempt subdivision
application may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners.
(2) The Board of County Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and,
where applicable, all Final Plats shall contain information and /or conditions
approved by the Commissioners.
(3) The Board of County Commissioners in all such appeals shall make findings of
fact in support of its decision. The subdivider shall be notified, in writing, of the
Board's decision.
(C) Minor Subdivisions
(1) The decision of the Planning Director regarding a minor subdivision application
may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners.
(2) The Board of County Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and,
where applicable, all Final Plats shall contain information and /or conditions
approved by the Commissioners.
(3) The Board of County Commissioners in all such appeals shall make findings of
fact in support of its decision. The subdivider shall be notified, in writing, of the
Board's decision.
(D) Major Subdivisions — Final Plat
(1) The decision of the Planning Director regarding a Major Subdivision Final Plat
application may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners.
(2) The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and where
applicable, all Final Plats shall contain information and /or conditions approved by
the Board of Commissioners.
(3) The Board of Commissioners in all such appeals shall make findings of fact in
support of its decision.
(4) The applicant shall be notified, in writing, of the Board of Commissioners'
decision.
2 25 32.26.3 Planning Board Decisions
(A) Major Subdivisions — Concept Plan
(1) The decision of the Planning Board regarding Concept Plan Development
Options may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners.
(2) Any notice of appeal shall be filed, in writing, with the Planning Director within 15
days after the date of the Planning Board's decision.
(3) If the appeal involves a plan /map approval, 16 copies of the plan /map shall be
submitted along with the written appeal.
(4) The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and, where
applicable, all Concept Plan Development Options shall contain information
and /or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners.
(5) The Board of Commissioners in all such appeals shall make findings of fact in
support of its decision. The applicant shall be notified, in writing, of the Board of
Commissioners' decision within ten days after said decision is made.
22542.26.4 Board of Adjustment Decisions
(A) Every decision of the Board shall be subject to review at the request of any aggrieved
party by the Superior Court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari. The appeal to
Superior Court must be filed within 30 days of the availability of the notice of decision
(2.12.5(A)).
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -69
Article 2: Procedures 16
Section 2.26: Appeals
2.25.52.26.5 Board of County Commissioners Decisions
(A) Quasi - Judicial Decisions
(1) Quasi - judicial 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 by proceedings in the nature of certiorari.
(2) The appeal to the Superior Court must be filed within 30 days of the filing of the
decision of the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Director or the
delivery of the notice of the decision to the applicant, whichever is later.
(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 below:
(a) 60 days in cases involving the appeal of an Ordinance amending the
Zoning Atlas,
(b) 1 year (365 days) in cases involving the appeal of an Ordinance
amendment the UDO,
(c) 3 years (1,035 days) in cases involving an appeal based on an alleged
defect in the adoption process of an Ordinance amending the UDO.
2 25 G2.26.6 Water Supply Watershed Critical Area Boundary Line
Appeal applications disputing the Planning Director's decision regarding the location of a Water
Supply Watershed Critical Area boundary line shall be accompanied by:
(A) A survey prepared by a North Carolina registered land surveyor or professional engineer
depicting the differences between:
(1) The locational criteria in Section 4.2,
(2) The official Watershed map on file in the Planning Department, and
(3) The boundary line the applicant asserts is correct.
(B) A detailed explanation describing the differences in the three boundary lines contained in
(A) above.
22572.26.7 Special Flood Hazard Overlay District
(A) Any property owner who has received an order to take corrective action in accordance
with Section 9.7 may appeal the order to the local elected governing body by giving
notice of appeal in writing to the Floodplain Administrator and the clerk within ten
business days following issuance of the final order.
(B) The local governing body shall hear an appeal within a reasonable time and may affirm,
modify and affirm, or revoke the order.
22522.26.8 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
(A) Appeal of Erosion Control Plan
Except as provided in subsection (D) below, the appeal of a disapproval, approval with
modifications, or approval with conditions of an Erosion Control Plan shall be governed
by the following provisions:
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -70
Article 2: Procedures 17
Section 2.26: Appeals
(1) The disapproval of, modification of, or conditions of approval attached to any
proposed Erosion Control Plan by the Erosion Control Officer shall entitle the
person submitting the plan to an appeal of the decision to the Orange County
Planning Director.
(2) If the Planning Director upholds the decision, the person shall be entitled to a
public hearing if such person submits written demand for a hearing within 15
days after receipt of written notice of disapproval, modification, or conditions of
approval.
(B) Hearings
(1) Orange County
(a) This sub - subsection pertains to appeals for land- disturbing activities
occurring outside the corporate limits of the Towns of Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, and Hillsborough, and the City of Mebane.
(b) Hearings held pursuant to this sub - subsection shall be conducted by the
Orange County Planning Board within 30 days after receipt of written
demand, as provided for in (A)(2) above.
(c) The Orange County Planning Board shall make recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners within 30 days after the date of the
hearing on such Erosion Control Plan.
(d) The Board of County Commissioners will render its final decision on any
Erosion Control Plan appeal within 30 days of receipt of the Planning
Board recommendation.
(2) Other than Orange County
(a) This sub - subsection pertains to appeals for land- disturbing activities
occurring within the corporate limits of the Towns of Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, and Hillsborough, and the City of Mebane.
(b) Hearings held pursuant to this sub - subsection shall be conducted by a
designated agency of the appropriate town or city board within 30 days
after receipt of written demand, as provided for in (A)(2) above.
(c) The said designated agency shall make recommendations to the
appropriate town or city board within 30 days after the date of the
hearing on such Erosion Control Plan.
(d) The said appropriate town or city board will render its final decision on
any Erosion Control Plan appeal within 30 days of the receipt of the
recommendations from the said designated agency conducting the
hearing.
(C) Appeal from Local Government's Decision
If the local governing body upholds the disapproval, modification, or conditions of
approval of a proposed Erosion Control Plan following the public hearing, the applicant
shall be entitled to appeal the local government's action to the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission as provided in Section 113A -61(c) of the General
Statutes and Title 15A NCAC 4B.0118.
(D) Appeal of Erosion Control Plan if Disapproval Based on Applicant's Past
Performance
The applicant may appeal disapprovals issued under the provisions of Section 2.19.11 of
this Ordinance directly to the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
(E) Appeal of Land - Disturbing Stop Work Order
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -71
Article 2: Procedures 18
Section 2.26: Appeals
(1) The person conducting the land- disturbing activity may appeal a stop work order
to the Board of County Commissioners within a period of five days after the order
is issued.
(2) Notice of the appeal shall be given in writing to the Board of County
Commissioners, with a copy to the Erosion Control Officer.
(3) The Board of County Commissioners shall conduct a hearing at their next
scheduled regular meeting at which the appellant and the Erosion Control Officer
or Inspector shall be permitted to submit relevant evidence, and shall rule on the
appeal as expeditiously as possible.
(4) Pending the ruling by the Board of County Commissioners on an appeal, no
further work shall take place in violation of a stop work order.
2.25.92.26.9 Stormwater Management Plan
(A) Appeals of the Erosion Control Officer's decision on a Stormwater Management Plan
shall be made to the Orange County Planning Director.
(B) If the Planning Director upholds the decision, the applicant shall be entitled to a public
hearing if the applicant submits written demand for a hearing within 15 days after receipt
of written notice of disapproval, modification, or conditions of approval.
(C) The hearing shall be conducted by the Orange County Planning Board within 30 days
after receipt of written demand for a hearing.
(D) The Orange County Planning Board shall make recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners within 30 days after the date of the hearing.
(E) The Board of County Commissioners shall render its final decision on any stormwater
management plan upon which a hearing is requested within 30 days of receipt of the
recommendations from the Planning Board.
X02.26.10 Appeal of Stop Work Orders Regarding Stormwater Management Provisions
(A) The person conducting the development activity may appeal a stop work order to the
Board of County Commissioners within a period of five days after the order is issued.
(B) Notice of the appeal shall be given in writing to the Board of County Commissioners, with
a copy to the Erosion Control Officer.
(C) The Board of County Commissioners shall conduct a hearing at their next scheduled
regular meeting at which the appellant and the Erosion Control Officer or Inspector shall
be permitted to submit relevant evidence, and shall rule on the appeal as expeditiously as
possible.
(D) Pending the ruling by the Board of County Commissioners on an appeal, no further work
shall take place in violation of a stop work order.
2-.2ZA42.26.11 Appeals from Final Decisions Regarding Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Civil Penalties
(A) Appeal from Board of County Commissioners or Other Governing Body Decisions
Appeal from the final decision of the governing body regarding civil penalties assessed
for violations of the soil erosion and sedimentation control provisions of this Ordinance
shall be to the Superior Court of the county where the violation occurred, or in the county
where the violator's residence or principal place of business is located.
Orange County, North Carolina - Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -72
Article 5: Uses 19
Section 5.2: Table of Permitted Uses
5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses - Economic Development Districts
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES - ECONOMIC .-
PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE C = CONDITIONAL
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
.- .-
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District' — CU (e.g., EDB -2 -CU)
AGRICULTURAL USES
Animal hospital /veterinarian
C#
C#
Kennel, Class I
C#
Kennel, Class II
B
B
CONSTRUCTION
Building contractors
Construction (Sector 23) (Hillsborough EDD only;
all activities must be wholly within building)
Plumbing, heating, electrical, and similar trade
contractors
FINANCE
Banks, savings and loans, and credit unions
Credit agencies and institutions
Finance & Insurance (Sector 52)
Insurance carriers and agents
Real estate agents and brokers
Security and commodity brokers, and investment
offices
GOVERNMENT USES 9
Governmental facilities and office buildings
(including solid waste collection centers
Governmental protective services (Police and fire
stations, rescue squads, and volunteer fire
departments)
' Staff is adding language to make the land use category designation consistent throughout UDO.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -10
Article 9: Enforcement 20
Section 9.5: Enforcement Procedure
(b) State the actions necessary to correct the violation,
(c) Specify a reasonable time period in which the violati ust be
corrected,
(d) e the remedies and penalties au ized herein that the Planning
Direct ay pursue if the viol n is not corrected within the specified
time limit,
(e) Invite the allewd-'qioFatQQo meet with the Planning Director to discuss
the viol and how it ma corrected, and
(f) ntain a statement indicating that N<ecision referenced within the
notice can be appealed to the Orange Co Board of Adjustment as
detailed within this Ordinance. This statement ghslQinclude language
indicating that the appeal must be filled within 30 days the date of
the initial notice and shall provide the deadline for the submi of the
appeal application.
9.5.4 Appeals
(A) Any person aggrieved by the Planning Director's determination of a violation or a
correction order may appeal that determination or order to the Board of Adjustment in
accord with the provisions of Section 2.25 2.27 of this Ordinance, including payment of
the appropriate fee.
(B) Except as provided in Section 22.27, an appeal generally stays all further actions to
enforce a notice of violation, correction order, or Stop Work Order, until the Board of
Adjustment has made a decision concerning the appeal.
(C) Civil Penalty Citations subsequent to the initial notice of violation may not be appealed to
the Board of Adjustment.
(D) As detailed within Sections 2.12 and 252.27, the Board of Adjustment shall hear the
appeal and may affirm, modify, or revoke the Planning Director's determination of a
violation.
(E) If there is no appeal, the Planning Director's determination of the nature and degree of
the violation are final.
5 Timeline for Abatement
he time allotted to abate an identified violation shall be at the sole discretion of the Planni
DireQ.Or and shall be based upon what is deemed a reasonable amount of time to aba
identifie iolation. The following standards shall apply"
(A) Within days of receipt of an initial notice of violation, correction er, or Stop Work
Order, the ner of the property on which the violation occur ay submit to the
Planning Direc written request for extension of the s cified time limit for correction
of the violation.
(B) The Planning Director sha sist individual i the preparation of the written request for
extension in cases where an in ' 'dual is /are unable to prepare a written request.
(C) The Planning Director shall det ine ether the time limit should be extended based
on the information contain n the written Mquest for extension. The Planning Director
may extend the time li as reasonably necess to allow timely correction of the
violation.
(D) In cases re an appeal of the notice of violation has bee roperly filed with the Board
of A ment, as provided in Section 9.5.4, the 30 day periods I commence upon
eipt of the notice of the Board of Adjustment decision concerning violation or
correction order.
(E) Following the time limit for correction of the violation, including any stay or exte
thereof, the Planning Director shall determine whether the violation has been c,
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 9 -3
Article 9: Enforcement
Section 9.6: Penalties, Remedies, and Enforcement Powers
this Ordinance for failure to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance or the ms and
conditions of a permit or authorization granted under this Ordinance.
(B) Any permit, certificate, or authorization mistakenly issued in violation of ate law or local
rdinance, or issued on the basis of misrepresentations by the applic t, owner, or
o er's agent may be revoked without such written determinatio
9.6.3 Permit Denial oNonditioning
(A)
(B)
As long as a vNklation of this Ordinance remains uncor cted, the Planning Director may
deny or withhold royal of any permit, certificate r other authorization provided for in
this Ordinance that i ought for the property on hich the violation occurs.
The Planning Director mac
correction of the violation a
compliance security.
9.6.4 Injunctive and Abatement Relief in
condition Oermit, certificate, or authorization on the
payme of a civil penalty, and /or posting of a
urt
(A) A violation may be correc d by any appro N to equitable remedy, a mandatory or
prohibitory injunction, X an order of al -nentsQs authorized by NCGS 153A -123.
(B) The Planning Dir or shall have the authority to e %me order of abatement if the
violator does comply with such order, and the e execution shall be
recovered a lien on the property in the nature onic's or materialman 's lien.
9.6.5 Criminal Peroties
(A) ny person, firm or corporation who violates the provisions of this Or ance or fails to
comply with any of its requirements shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a lass 3
misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than a maximum of $500.00, imp i onment of
up to 30 days, or both, for each violation, as provided in NCGS Section 14 -4.
(B) The Planning Director may refer a violation to the District Attorney for institution of
criminal prosecution of the alleged violator.
9.6.6 Stop Work Order
(A) If a building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired,
converted, moved or maintained, or any building, structure or land is used in violation of a
Stop Work Order, the Planning Director, in addition to other remedies, may institute any
appropriate action or proceedings to prevent the unlawful erection, construction,
reconstruction, alteration, repair, conversion, moving, maintenance or use, to restrain,
correct or abate the violation, to prevent occupancy of the building, structure or lands, or
to prevent any illegal act, conduct, business or use in or about the premises.
(B) Notice of a Stop Work Order shall be in writing, directed to the person(s) conducting the
violating activity and /or the property owner, and shall state the reasons for the issuance
of the Order, and the conditions under which activity may be resumed. Notice shall be
given by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy of the notice shall
also be sent by regular mail. Service shall be deemed sufficient if the notice by certified
mail is unclaimed or refused, but the notice by regular mail is not returned by the post
office within ten days after mailing. Upon issuance of such Order, and posting of same
on the site of the violation, all work on the site of the violation shall cease, except those
activities necessary to bring the site into compliance with this Ordinance.
(C) The person(s) conducting the violating activity and /or the property owner may appeal the
Stop Work Order to the Board of Adjustment pursuant to Section 242.27 of this
Ordinance.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 9 -6
21
Article 9: Enforcement
Section 9.7: Additional Procedures — Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District
9.7.1 Actions in Ev�pf Violation
(A) Identified violatio—qs.Qf the Special Flood Hazard Overlay District shall be sent a
Notice of Violation. ThZNQtice shall detai nature of the violation and schedule a
hearing with the Floodplain A i or to review the situation.
(B) This hearing shall be hel ore the F lain Administrator at a designated place and
time, not later tha business days after th to of the Notice, at which time the
owner sha entitled to be heard in person or by c el and to present arguments and
evi e pertaining to the matter.
Following the hearing, the Floodplain Administrator may issue such r to alter, vacate,
or demolish the structure; or to remove fill as appears appropriate.
9.7.2 Order to Take Corrective Action
(A) If, upon a hearing held pursuant to the notice prescribed above, the Floodplain
Administrator shall find that the structure or development is in violation of this Ordinance,
he or she shall make an order in writing to the owner, requiring the owner to remedy the
violation within a specified time period, not less than 60 days.
(B) Where the Floodplain Administrator finds that there is imminent danger to life or other
property, he or she may order that corrective action be taken in such lesser period as
may be feasible.
(C) In the absence of an appeal (see Section :2 :24 7 2.27.7), the order of the Floodplain
Administrator shall be final.
9.7.3 Failure to Comply with Order
If the owner of a building or property fails to comply with an order to take corrective action from
which no appeal has been filed, or fails to comply with an order of the governing body following
an appeal, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and shall be punished in the
discretion of the court.
9.8.1 Infections and Investigations
(A) Inspections
Agents, ficials, or other qualified persons authorized by the my will periodically
inspect Ian - isturbing activities to ensure:
(1) Complianc ith the North Carolina Sedim ation Pollution Control Act of 1973
( "Act" in this Se 'on), this Ordinance, ules or orders adopted or issued
pursuant to this Or i nce;
(2) The measures required in plan are effective in controlling erosion and
sediment resulting from d- rbing activity.
Notice of the right to ins p shall be include ' the letter of approval of each Erosion
Control Plan.
(B) Authority to er Property and Conduct Investigatio and Inspections
(1) person shall willfully resist, delay, or obstruct an au ized representative,
employee, or agent of Orange County, while that person is i ecting or
attempting to inspect a land- disturbing activity under this section.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 9 -8
22
Article 9: Enforcement
Section 9.8: Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
punishable by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or by a fine not to exceed $71 or
by both, at the discretion of the court.
9.8.3 Injukctive Relief
(A) .vil Action in Superior Court
(1) Whenever the governing body of the Town or County ha easonable cause to
elieve that any person is violating or threatening to vi ate the soil erosion and
se 'mentation control provisions of this Ordinance any rule or order adopted or
issue ursuant to these regulations, or any ter , condition, or provision of an
approve Erosion Control Plan, it may, either fore or after the institution of any
other actio or proceeding authorized by t i Ordinance, institute a civil action in
the name of t town or county for injun ive relief to restrain the violation or
threatened viola n.
(2) The action shall be b ught in th uperior Court of Orange County.
(B) Order to Cease Violation
(1) Upon determination by ou hat an alleged violation is occurring or is
threatened, the court all enter y order or judgment that is necessary to abate
the violation, to en re that restora n is performed, or to prevent the threatened
violation.
(2) The institut' of an action for injunctive re i f under this section shall not relieve
any part o the proceedings from any civil or iminal penalty prescribed for
violati s of the soil erosion and sedimentation trol provisions of this
Or ' ance.
9.8.4 Restoration Areas Affected by Failure to Comply
/(A)e County may require a person who is engaged in a land- disturbing ctivity and failed
tain sediment generated by the activity, as required by N.C.G.S. 11 - 57(3), to re the waters and land affected by the failure so as to minimize the det i ental ts of the resulting pollution by sedimentation.
authority is in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty or injunctive relief orized under this Ordinance.
9.8.5 Revocation of Land Disturbing Permit
(A) Whenever a person conducting a land- disturbing activity is not complying with the soil
erosion and sedimentation control provisions of this Ordinance, the Land Disturbing
Permit, the Approved Erosion Control Plan or any amendments to the Erosion Control
Plan, the Erosion Control Officer may revoke the Land Disturbing Permit for the site.
(B) Notice of Revocation shall be sent by registered or certified mail to the person conducting
the land- disturbing activity. In the event delivery cannot be accomplished by registered or
certified mail, it may be accomplished in any manner provided in Rule 4 (j) of the North
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
(C) Upon receipt of the Revocation Notice, the person responsible must immediately order all
land- disturbing activities to cease except those which are specifically directed towards
bringing the site into compliance with the soil erosion and sedimentation control
provisions of this Ordinance.
(D) Once the site has been inspected and remedial work approved by the Erosion Control
Officer, the responsible party may reapply for a Land Disturbing Permit and pay the
appropriate fee.
(E) Resumption of land disturbing activities other than those necessary to bring the site back
into compliance with the soil erosion and sedimentation control provisions of this
Ordinance before the reissuance of the Land Disturbing Permit shall constitute a violation
of the Ordinance.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 9 -12
23
Article 9: Enforcement
Section 9.9: Stormwater Management
(F) The person conducting the land- disturbing activity may appeal the revocation of a Land
Disturbing Permit following procedures set out in Section 2-452.27 of this Ordinance.
9.1 Inspections and Investigations
(A) Site Inspections
(1) Agents, officials, or other qualified persons authorized by the County wi
\(a) idially inspect on -site BMPs and illegal discharges to ensure:
Compliance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollutio Control Act
of 1973 ( "Act" in this Section), this Ordinance, or rules or rders adopted
or issued pursuant to this Ordinance;
The measures required in the Stormwater Manage nt plan being
constructed in accordance with the approved plan The permanent BMPs are not in need of any intenance including, but
not limited to, the following:
(i) Mowing of vegetation,
(ii) Vegetation re- establishment,
(\Malnage emoval (especially fro wet detention ponds),
(ization of any erodi areas, and
(ural (pipe, riser, am, etc) repair.
(2) Notice of spect shall b included in the letter of approval of each
Stormwaent Plan.
(B) Authority to Enter Property a Con uct Investigations and Inspections
(1) No person shall willfully re delay, or obstruct an authorized representative,
employee, or agent of Or County, while that person is inspecting or
attempting to inspect a r quire on -site BMP.
(2) The Erosion Control fficer shall
as deemed reason ly necessary t
Ordinance, and f this purpose to e
public or privat , for the purpose of i
required on -s' a BMP.
e the power to conduct such investigations
carry out the duties as prescribed in this
i r at reasonable times upon any property,
ive tigating and inspecting the sites of any
(3) No person hall refuse entry or access to an authorized representative or agent
of the C my who requests entry for purposes f inspection, and who presents
appro late credentials, nor shall any person ob sXuct, hamper or interfere with
any §6ch representative while in the process of caNying out their official duties.
(C) Notice of)0'iolation
(1) f it is determined that a person responsible for constructbikn or maintenance of
any permanent on -site BMP, or removal of any Illegal Disc rge has failed to
comply with the Act, this Ordinance, or rules, or orders adop d or issued
pursuant to this Ordinance, a notice of violation shall be serve upon that person.
(2) The notice may be served by any means authorized under N.C.G. . 1A -1, rule 4.
(3) The notice shall specify a date by which the person must comply wit the Act, or
this Ordinance or rules, or orders adopted pursuant to this Ordinance, d inform
the person of the actions that need to be taken to comply with the Act, th
Ordinance, or rules or orders adopted pursuant to this Ordinance.
(4) No time period for compliance need be given for encroaching on the riparian
buffer or for obstructing, hampering or interfering with an authorized
representative while in the process of carrying out their official duties.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 9 -13
24
25
Attachment 3 DRAFT
Ordinance Review Committee
1 (ORC)Notes SUMMARY NOTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 JULY 10,2013
4 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
5
6 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings.
7
8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Stephanie O'Rourke, Eno Township
9 Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James
10 Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Paul Guthrie,At-Large, Chapel Hill Township
11
12
13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Special
14 Projects Coordinator;Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love,Administrative Assistant II
15
16
17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
18
19
20 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENTS-GOVERNMENTAL USES
21 To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO to require that the site plan review
22 process for governmental uses include a neighborhood information meeting.
23 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
24
25 Mr. Harvey reviewed abstract.
26
27 Tony Blake: Is this a conflict of interest for me? I have no financial interest but it is directly related to the substation we are
28 trying to build.
29
30 Michael Harvey: I don't think you have a conflict.
31
32 Tony Blake: How does this affect the plan in progress?
33
34 Michael Harvey: If your site plan has already been submitted then you won't have to follow this process. If it is adopted and
35 your site plan has not been submitted then you will need to follow this process. With due respect to White Cross Volunteer
36 Fire Department, Commissioner Jacobs has indicated his preference for a meeting to be held no matter what to address some
37 of the concerns of the local residents.
38
39 Craig Benedict: I would work with the attorneys to put a provision in on the effective date, what this applies to, like a clause
40 that says that anything from a certain date that it applies to.
41
42 Tony Blake: This is one of the volunteer organizations and we don't have the time or wherewithal to host a public meeting so
43 would the county be hosting this meeting for us in a volunteer situation?
44
45 Michael Harvey: The ordinance says we will assist with scheduling the meeting but we are not assuming the liability or cost
46 for advertisements or informing the citizens. There is nothing in the code that says you can't use county facilities.
47
48 Tony Blake: Typically the public hearings are run by the county.
49
50 Michael Harvey: This isn't a public hearing just a neighborhood information meeting to inform the local residents as to what is
51 being proposed.
52
53 Tony Blake: Is the outcome of this meeting a decision as to whether to proceed or not?
1
26
DRAFT
54
55 Michael Harvey: This is to initiate and have a dialogue with adjoining property owners to address or mitigate those concerns if
56 feasible.
57
58 Tony Blake: I am trying to understand the purpose of this if it is not binding in any way. I am thinking of the people that are
59 currently against this. I don't see any way we will change any minds.
60
61 Michael Harvey: There is a broader issue here that doesn't necessarily involve the White Cross Volunteer Fire Department.
62 There is a feeling among the Board that any time there is government project, there needs to be notification to the public.
63
64 Pete Hallenbeck: Imagine you had a meeting for everyone at the volunteer fire department and have slips with questions, i.e.
65 are they adjacent property owners, give them check boxes and a place for comments. You could have a presentation and let
66 people speak and in writing. Then you could say this is what we did at the meeting with committee which you could document
67 with an executive summary.
68
69 Tony Blake: Where does this document go?
70
71 Michael Harvey: To the county planning staff as part of your site plan submittal.
72
73 Craig Benedict: During the subdivision process, we take those comments into consideration and the neighborhood
74 information notes become part of our packages.
75
76 Stephanie O'Rourke: How do you handle it if they all object?
77
78 Craig Benedict: Michael, you go through the uses permitted by right by uses ....
79
80 Michael Harvey: That is the first item on the regular agenda I don't want to jump into that presentation. Government uses are
81 permitted by right meaning that they are subject to staff review and approval with a site plan submitted according to this code.
82 There are typically no public hearings required, the BOCC will not be approving it or the planning board. In this specific
83 instance, the White Cross Volunteer Department Substation will still be approved and acted upon by the county planning staff.
84
85 Paul Guthrie: This language which has been developed because of the White Cross application and I would assume the
86 property owners within 500 feet of the property on Neville Road is a handful of them easily for and that is simple. If this goes
87 into the general development, what will you do when you have this issue come up and three condo units with 200 separate
88 owners and you have to go through this process? I am concerned that this has implications down the road. Have we thought
89 through in the development of this language the implications that other situations and concerns?
90
91 Michael Harvey: This language is consistent with existing language on how we handle neighborhood information meetings for
92 several projects. If you have a government use that is adjacent property where there are 200 lots, then you will have to notify
93 all 200 of them. If it was a major subdivision, the staff would still have to notify those property owners. You will typically find
94 that both state and federal governments are exempt from zoning regulations.
95
96 Tony Blake: I think this is reactive in a political year by the County Commissioners and it has bad implications down the road.
97 This is time consuming and resource consuming and what the tax payers give us is to be used for fighting fire. If the county
98 wants it that it is the county's role to hold it and I would also suggest strongly that this also be able to be satisfied in the form of
99 writing rather than a public meeting because we have a very small fire station. I think it puts an unnecessary burden on a
100 volunteer organization.
101
102 Pete Hallenbeck: I suggest you take those suggestions and put them in writing so when the BOCC look at passing this UDO
103 amendment, you could speak as a citizen. There is the opportunity here; no matter what you do there will be people against it.
104 But it would be a good opportunity to give information.
105
106 Tony Blake: The end result is that it would be neighbor versus neighbor.
PJ
27
DRAFT
107
108 Pete Hallenbeck: I understand you think this is political but if you do that and it goes to a public hearing, you have shown that
109 you have taken the time to listen to the public. Ultimately the decision is made by the BOCC but it is a good way to be
110 proactive.
111
112 Perdita Holtz: Just for clarification, the decision is not made by the BOCC because it is a staff approval.
113
114 Stephanie O'Rourke: Can you give me another scenario of what you would have to deal with?
115
116 Michael Harvey: Orange County Department of Environment Parks Natural Agricultural does park planning. If they wish to
117 propose a park, they would be subject to these rules and regulations.
118
119 Paul Guthrie: The County wants to designate a bicycle trail or a hiking trail covering a great deal of distance and many
120 owners. Under this language, would they have to reach out to every owner within 500 feet of that trail in order to satisfy this
121 ordinance?
122
123 Michael Harvey: With respect to government uses, the land use category this would impact, you have government facilities
124 and office buildings so yes I could see a trail falling into that category but also I would say that development of such a trail
125 would be discussed in a public forum where the county would advertise ....
126
127 Paul Guthrie: But not necessarily see a certified letter?
128
129 Michael Harvey: Not necessarily but we have written in this code that if there is planning effort soliciting public comment or
130 involvement with the development of a plan, that satisfies this meeting requirement. If you any other questions or concerns,
131 please email me.
132
133
134
135 AGENDA ITEM 3: ADJOURNMENT
136
137 Meeting was adjourned by consensus
Attachment 4 28
Michael Harvey
From:
Rich Shaw
Sent:
Monday, July 01, 2013 10:14 AM
To:
Michael Harvey
Cc:
Marabeth Carr; David Stancil
Subject:
RE: Peer Review - proposed UDO Text Amendment
Michael,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on draft UDO language to address a concern over a lack of public
involvement with "governmental uses." We agree that the general public, and especially all neighboring landowners,
should be made aware of plans to develop new facilities on County -owned land.
DEAPR has a long history of involving the public in the development of its park master plans. So we are pleased to see
that the proposed rules would not require additional meetings in cases where a master plan (or phased development
plan) has already been approved by the County for the subject property. For all new parks and public recreation areas
DEAPR already utilizes a community -based process. We start with an information meeting and design charette(s) to
gather input on what the citizens of Orange County would like to see in their parks. We typically include neighborhood
representatives on the park master plan committee and also hold open meetings for the public to review and comment
on the draft plan. Typically this public process is a series of 5 -7 meetings over a six- to nine -month period.
We have identified three provisions in the proposed guidelines for holding Neighborhood Educational Meetings (Section
2.24.1.) where we find a difference in DEAPR's current practice:
1. DEAPR sends out invitations through the regular mail rather than by certified mail, which costs $5.00 per
address (not in our budget)
2. DEAPR conducts its own public meetings and typically invites a Planning staff representative to participate. We
do not intend to "contract" that out to the Planning and Inspections Department. Perhaps the UDO could
provide some guidelines for the meeting format and agenda that could be used by DEAPR and other
departments that wish to conduct their own meetings.
3. DEAPR would like more clarity on what kinds of site development would not require a public education
meeting. There are many small projects handled "in- house" by DEAPR's Parks grounds staff (to save time and
money) rather than contracting the work out to a private firm. Many of those projects occur during the winter
months when the workload is less. The proposed rules may cause problems for some projects, requiring that
the timeframe be drawn out for several weeks... possibly forcing their cancelation altogether.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss please feel free to contact us.
Marabeth Carr, Landscape Architect
Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
306A Revere Rd / PO Box 8181 / Hillsborough NC 27278 / 919 - 245 -2516 / htti): / /www.co.orange.nc.us
Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager
Orange County
Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
306A Revere Rd / PO Box 8181 / Hillsborough NC 27278 / 919 - 245 -2514 / http: / /www.co.orange.nc.us
29
From: Michael Harvey
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Craig Benedict; Tom Altieri; Perdita Holtz; Ashley E.. Moncado; Jennifer Leaf; Michael Kelly; Bret A.. Martin; Abigaile
Pittman
Cc: James Bryan; Rich Shaw; Marabeth Carr; Jeff Thompson; Gayle Wilson; Jeff Scouten; Dan Bruce; Wesley Poole
Subject: Peer Review - proposed LIDO Text Amendment
I am attaching an item for peer review on a proposed text amendment relating to the holding of a neighborhood
information meeting prior to the review of a development project proposing a governmental use.
This amendment is being proposed to address concerns over a lack of public notification when a land use within the
governmental uses land use category (i.e. government facilities and office buildings which will include land fill(s),
transfer stations, parks, office building, police /fire stations, volunteer fire station, etc.) is proposed for
development. The amendment is being made consistent with a BOCC Chair /Vice Chair request in accordance with a
UDO Amendment Outline Form approved at the June 18, 2013 BOCC meeting (attached).
All I am including at this time is the proposed language requiring the meeting. I am not including revised pages to
correct citations to several sections being 'renumbered' as a result of this proposal. Frankly I am not done with this
aspect of the amendment yet, which will be provided at a later date.
This item is slated for review by the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) at the July 10, 2013 meeting. If
possible I would like you initial comments by June 28, 2013 for inclusion in the Planning Board packet.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
Michael
30
Michael Harvey
From: Jeff Scouten
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 11:52 AM
To: Michael Harvey
Cc: Gayle Wilson; Craig Benedict
Subject: RE: Peer Review - proposed UDO Text Amendment
Michael:
If I understand correctly, pre- submission conferences requested by the Applicant are optional but perhaps if these were
made mandatory (CH does this) then that would give the Applicant the opportunity to make their case for why their
project should move forward without the bias of having been already 'shot down' by surrounding neighbors if they were
required to conduct the community meeting first.
And, if an Applicant were required to submit a digital sketch plan /preliminary plan /illustrative plan as part of the
mandatory pre- submission conference with County staff, that could become public information made available to the
surrounding community members to have prior to the community meeting and which could allow for alternative
viewpoints /layouts to be presented by those folks wishing to do so at the time of the community meeting. I know from
my land development experience that the Applicant already has these plans in hand once they are ready to sit down
with the County /City so there wouldn't be any additional cost to them.
Also, I have found that if you allow outside participation (i.e. 'stakeholders') you get more buy -in than if you just show
up at these meetings and show your plan for the first time.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Jeff Scouten
Environmental Enforcement Supervisor
Orange County Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 17177
Chapel Hill, NC 27516 -7177
919 - 968 -2788 x 107 (Office)
919 - 932 -2900 (Facsimile)
iscouten(@oraneecountvnc.eov
RGE:�tUNTY
I `i ItTH CAROLINA
From: Michael Harvey
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 2:15 PM
To: Gayle Wilson; Craig Benedict; Tom Altieri; Perdita Holtz; Ashley E.. Moncado; Jennifer Leaf; Michael Kelly; Bret A..
Martin; Abigaile Pittman
Cc: James Bryan; Rich Shaw; Marabeth Carr; Jeff Thompson; Jeff Scouten; Dan Bruce; Wesley Poole
Subject: RE: Peer Review - proposed LIDO Text Amendment
My comments are embedded below: Thanks for your quick review.
Michael
From: Gayle Wilson
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 1:37 PM
To: Michael Harvey; Craig Benedict; Tom Altieri; Perdita Holtz; Ashley E.. Moncado; Jennifer Leaf; Michael Kelly; Bret A..
Martin; Abigaile Pittman
31
Cc: James Bryan; Rich Shaw; Marabeth Carr; Jeff Thompson; Jeff Scouten; Dan Bruce; Wesley Poole
Subject: RE: Peer Review - proposed UDO Text Amendment
I have only a few comments on this proposal:
A UDO Article Two
(1) says that prior to submittal of a site plan application ..................
Comment - UDO Outline Form says (2) prior to any action by the County to review
And on the Form under the Heading at the top it says prior to issuance of a permit
Are these statements in conflict or at least inconsistent with Article Two (1)?
The outline form provides general statements detailing the proposal and does not represent anything formal or offer
technical aspects of how the actual amendment will read.
The purpose of the form is for the BOCC to understand the direction we are heading in and approve any public
involvement with the review of a text amendment.
From my standpoint the meeting is being held prior to any action by the County on a specific development proposal,
which is the message contained in the UDO amendment form.
B General
Both documents indicate addressing comments received. There are limits to addressing concerns that are often
emotional or related to some vague social issue /standard. It is difficult to provide a reasonable, fact based response to
these type public concerns. How will individual opinions be addressed versus issues of fact or interpretation? NIMBY's
are by some definitions nearly impossible to satisfactorily address.
I believe that there should be some limitation on the extent of response to comments. If the public says they just don't
want the facility in their neighborhood — how do you respond to that comment? How many negatives does the
applicant have to prove?
All we expect is for there to be a response. An acceptable response can, and more than likely will be, in the scenario
you provide 'We understand your concerns but this is where the proposed use is going to be located'.
I have shared similar comments with those who have requested this action. I have been directed to move forward
and allow for greater public involvement /notification of government projects with the understanding this is going to
be a major component we will have to deal with.
Remember: this proposal does not alter the 'permitted' nature of the project. As a result NIMBY arguments are
somewhat immaterial given the fact the 'use' is still permitted by right.
C UDO Article Two
If a public meeting is to be held prior to submittal of a site plan application how will the applicant even know that
his /her site plan is, from a regulatory compliance perspective, even permittable? Won't the project have to have
received some preliminary evaluation by Planning first before a public meeting? What if, after the public meeting, the
application is submitted and substantial changes are made? Does this call for another public meeting?
Understood. I will bring up with Craig again. Originally I had contemplated the neighborhood information meeting
being held after submittal of a site plan. We (i.e. Craig and 1) discussed at length and the concern was:
32
1. We did not want an applicant to incur additional costs if the site plan was going to be revised to address
public concern(s) expressed at the neighborhood information meeting, and
2. We did not want there to be the perception amongst adjacent property owners their comments /concerns did
not matter as we had the formal site plan submitted and ready to go (i.e. be reviewed).
One of the goals here is to involve property owners within 500 feet of the project in the development process so that
concerns could be addressed in the final design phase of a project.
As you are aware, the Planning Department typically completes courtesy review on all non - residential development
projects, including governmental uses, to address this very issue you bring up. That will not change with the adoption
of this amendment. Also please bear in mind the County holds pre - application meetings with applicants to review
these very issues prior to the formal submittal of development application.
I will keep you in the loop on where we are with this. There will be additional opportunity for peer review over the
summer as we move forward.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the opportunity to review.
Gayle
From: Michael Harvey
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Craig Benedict; Tom Altieri; Perdita Holtz; Ashley E.. Moncado; Jennifer Leaf; Michael Kelly; Bret A.. Martin; Abigaile
Pittman
Cc: James Bryan; Rich Shaw; Marabeth Carr; Jeff Thompson; Gayle Wilson; Jeff Scouten; Dan Bruce; Wesley Poole
Subject: Peer Review - proposed LIDO Text Amendment
I am attaching an item for peer review on a proposed text amendment relating to the holding of a neighborhood
information meeting prior to the review of a development project proposing a governmental use.
This amendment is being proposed to address concerns over a lack of public notification when a land use within the
governmental uses land use category (i.e. government facilities and office buildings which will include land fill(s),
transfer stations, parks, office building, police /fire stations, volunteer fire station, etc.) is proposed for
development. The amendment is being made consistent with a BOCC Chair /Vice Chair request in accordance with a
UDO Amendment Outline Form approved at the June 18, 2013 BOCC meeting (attached).
All I am including at this time is the proposed language requiring the meeting. I am not including revised pages to
correct citations to several sections being 'renumbered' as a result of this proposal. Frankly I am not done with this
aspect of the amendment yet, which will be provided at a later date.
This item is slated for review by the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) at the July 10, 2013 meeting. If
possible I would like you initial comments by June 28, 2013 for inclusion in the Planning Board packet.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
Michael
33
Michael Harve
From:
Michael Harvey
Sent:
Monday, August 05, 2013 8:59 AM
To:
Chief Bob Louis; Chief Brad Allison; Chief Caldwell Fire; Chief Carolyn Hutchison; Chief
Cedar Grove Fire; Chief Chris Blue; Chief Dan Jones; Chief Duane Hampton; Chief
Efland Fire; Chief Eno Fire; Chief Jeff Borland; Chief Jeff McCracken; Chief John Strowd;
Chief Josh Asbil; Chief New Hope Fire; Chief Orange Grove Fire; Chief Orange Rural
Fire; Chief Phillip Nasseri; Chief Steve McCauley; Chief Travis Crabtree; Chief White
Cross Fire; Lindy Pendergrass
Cc:
Craig Benedict; James Groves; Jason Shepherd; David Sykes; Elizabeth Gregory
Subject:
Notification of amendment to Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
regarding development of Government Uses
Attachments:
Attachment 2 - UDO Text Amendment.pdf
The Orange County Planning Department, at the direction of the County Commissioners, has initiated an ordinance
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance requiring the holding of a neighborhood information meeting prior
to the review of a development project proposing a governmental use.
This amendment is being proposed to address concerns over an apparent lack of public notification when a land use
within the governmental uses land use category (i.e. government facilities and office buildings which will include land
fill(s), transfer stations, parks, office building, police /fire stations, volunteer fire station, etc.) is proposed for
development. The amendment is being made consistent with a BOCC Chair /Vice Chair request in accordance with a
UDO Amendment Outline Form approved at the June 18, 2013 BOCC meeting (attached).
All I am including at this time is the proposed language requiring the meeting.
You are receiving this e-mail as you are the contact person(s) for public safety agencies /volunteer organizations that
may be responsible for the development of 'government uses' in Orange County. As a result we would like to solicit
your input on the proposal as its adoption could impact the process you would have to go through in order to develop a
'governmental use' in the County.
Please bear in mind that the purpose of the neighborhood information meeting is to inform the general public of the
project and solicit their comments /suggestions with respect to the project. This amendment will not alter the approval
process for the project, which will still be reviewed administratively by the County planning staff, nor does it impose
additional development standards /limitations above and beyond what already exists (i.e. setbacks from property lines,
land use buffers, impervious surface limits, etc.). There will not be a public hearing or Board approval of the project
required as part of any revised review process.
It should be noted this amendment may not have any impact on you whatsoever. It will only impact those agencies
looking to development 'government uses' in the County's planning jurisdiction and does not include properties located
within local municipalities or their extraterritorial jurisdictional boundaries (ETJ).
Please provide any response, in letter or e -mail format, to the County no later than August 23, 2013 for inclusion in the
September 9, 2013 Orange County BOCC meeting package.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your comments and continued service to the residents
of Orange County.
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFO, CZO
34
Current Planning Supervisor — Planner III
Orange County Planning Department
131 West Margaret Lane
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2597 (phone)
(919) 644 -3002 (fax)
35
Michael Harvey
From: James Groves
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:24 PM
To: Michael Harvey
Subject: RE: Notification of amendment to Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
regarding development of Government Uses
Thanks for the update ... I was not aware.
Jim Groves, CEM
Director of Emergency Services
Orange County, NC
919.245.6140 (Office)
919.943.8970 (Mobile)
http: / /orangecountync.gov /emergency
From: Michael Harvey
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:23 PM
To: James Groves
Subject: RE: Notification of amendment to Orange County Unified Development Ordinance regarding development of
Government Uses
Yes and they have been made aware of the need for this meeting.
I should hasten to also inform you that BOCC Chair Jacobs has indicated to White Cross, in writing I believe, a meeting
should be held regardless of the 'status' of this amendment. Assistant Fire Chief Tony Blake and I have spoken about
this already and they were trying to move forward with the scheduling of the meeting.
As a reminder we have no site plan from White Cross yet.
Let me know if there is anything I can do to be of further assistance.
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFO, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor — Planner III
Orange County Planning Department
131 West Margaret Lane
PO Box 8181
(919) 245 -2597 (phone)
(919) 644 -3002 (fax)
From: James Groves
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:08 PM
To: Michael Harvey
Subject: RE: Notification of amendment to Orange County Unified Development Ordinance regarding development of
Government Uses
Thanks Michael, I will review. Do you see this impacting what in already in progress with White Cross Fire on Neville
Road?
36
Jim Groves, CEM
Director of Emergency Services
Orange County, NC
919.245.6140 (Office)
919.943.8970 (Mobile)
http: / /orangecountync.gov /emergency
From: Michael Harvey
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 8:59 AM
To: Chief Bob Louis; Chief Brad Allison; Chief Caldwell Fire; Chief Carolyn Hutchison; Chief Cedar Grove Fire; Chief Chris
Blue; Chief Dan Jones; Chief Duane Hampton; Chief Efland Fire; Chief Eno Fire; Chief Jeff Borland; Chief Jeff McCracken;
Chief John Strowd; Chief Josh Asbil; Chief New Hope Fire; Chief Orange Grove Fire; Chief Orange Rural Fire; Chief Phillip
Nasseri; Chief Steve McCauley; Chief Travis Crabtree; Chief White Cross Fire; Lindy Pendergrass
Cc: Craig Benedict; James Groves; Jason Shepherd; David Sykes; Elizabeth Gregory
Subject: Notification of amendment to Orange County Unified Development Ordinance regarding development of
Government Uses
The Orange County Planning Department, at the direction of the County Commissioners, has initiated an ordinance
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance requiring the holding of a neighborhood information meeting prior
to the review of a development project proposing a governmental use.
This amendment is being proposed to address concerns over an apparent lack of public notification when a land use
within the governmental uses land use category (i.e. government facilities and office buildings which will include land
fill(s), transfer stations, parks, office building, police /fire stations, volunteer fire station, etc.) is proposed for
development. The amendment is being made consistent with a BOCC Chair /Vice Chair request in accordance with a
UDO Amendment Outline Form approved at the June 18, 2013 BOCC meeting (attached).
All I am including at this time is the proposed language requiring the meeting.
You are receiving this e-mail as you are the contact person(s) for public safety agencies /volunteer organizations that
may be responsible for the development of 'government uses' in Orange County. As a result we would like to solicit
your input on the proposal as its adoption could impact the process you would have to go through in order to develop a
'governmental use' in the County.
Please bear in mind that the purpose of the neighborhood information meeting is to inform the general public of the
project and solicit their comments /suggestions with respect to the project. This amendment will not alter the approval
process for the project, which will still be reviewed administratively by the County planning staff, nor does it impose
additional development standards /limitations above and beyond what already exists (i.e. setbacks from property lines,
land use buffers, impervious surface limits, etc.). There will not be a public hearing or Board approval of the project
required as part of any revised review process.
It should be noted this amendment may not have any impact on you whatsoever. It will only impact those agencies
looking to development 'government uses' in the County's planning jurisdiction and does not include properties located
within local municipalities or their extraterritorial jurisdictional boundaries (ETJ).
Please provide any response, in letter or e -mail format, to the County no later than August 23, 2013 for inclusion in the
September 9, 2013 Orange County BOCC meeting package.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your comments and continued service to the residents
of Orange County.
37
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFO, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor — Planner III
Orange County Planning Department
131 West Margaret Lane
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2597 (phone)
(919) 644 -3002 (fax)
W
Michael Harvey
From: Chief Chris Blue
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 6:14 AM
To: Michael Harvey
Subject: Re: Notification of amendment to Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
regarding development of Government Uses
Mr. Harvey: I have no comments or suggested edits.
Thank you,
Chris Blue
Chapel Hill Police Chief
Sent from my Wad
On Aug 5, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Michael Harvey"
< mharvey @orangecountync.gov<mai Ito: mharvey @orangecountync.gov>> wrote:
The Orange County Planning Department, at the direction of the County Commissioners, has initiated an ordinance
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance requiring the holding of a neighborhood information meeting prior
to the review of a development project proposing a governmental use.
This amendment is being proposed to address concerns over an apparent lack of public notification when a land use
within the governmental uses land use category (i.e. government facilities and office buildings which will include land
fill(s), transfer stations, parks, office building, police /fire stations, volunteer fire station, etc.) is proposed for
development. The amendment is being made consistent with a BOCC Chair /Vice Chair request in accordance with a
UDO Amendment Outline Form approved at the June 18, 2013 BOCC meeting (attached).
All I am including at this time is the proposed language requiring the meeting.
You are receiving this e-mail as you are the contact person(s) for public safety agencies /volunteer organizations that
may be responsible for the development of ?? ?government uses ? ?? in Orange County. As a result we would like to
solicit your input on the proposal as its adoption could impact the process you would have to go through in order to
develop a ?? ?governmental use ? ?? in the County.
Please bear in mind that the purpose of the neighborhood information meeting is to inform the general public of the
project and solicit their comments /suggestions with respect to the project. This amendment will not alter the approval
process for the project, which will still be reviewed administratively by the County planning staff, nor does it impose
additional development standards /limitations above and beyond what already exists (i.e. setbacks from property lines,
land use buffers, impervious surface limits, etc.). There will not be a public hearing or Board approval of the project
required as part of any revised review process.
It should be noted this amendment may not have any impact on you whatsoever. It will only impact those agencies
looking to development ?? ?government uses ? ?? in the County ? ? ?s planning jurisdiction and does not include properties
located within local municipalities or their extraterritorial jurisdictional boundaries (ETJ).
Please provide any response, in letter or e -mail format, to the County no later than August 23, 2013 for inclusion in the
September 9, 2013 Orange County BOCC meeting package.
39
Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your comments and continued service to the residents
of Orange County.
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFO, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor ? ?? Planner III Orange County Planning Department
131 West Margaret Lane
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2597 (phone)
(919) 644 -3002 (fax)
<Attachment 2 - UDO Text Amendment.pdf>
E -mail correspondence to and from this address, to include the sender's or recipient's e-mail address, may be subject to
the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized Town official. If you have
received this communication in error, please do not distribute it. Please notify the sender by E -mail at the address
shown and delete the original message.