HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-24-2014 - C7295
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND
PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 24, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. C.7
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment -Public Hearing Process
Changes
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Comprehensive Plan /UDO Amendment
Outline Form (UDO /Zoning 2013 -07)
including Flow Charts of Existing and
Proposed Processes
2. Proposed UDO Text Amendments
INFORMATION CONTACT: (919)
Perdita Holtz, Planning, 245 -2578
Craig Benedict, Planning, 245 -2592
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on Planning Director initiated Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text amendments to change the existing public hearing process for UDO -,
Comprehensive Plan -, and Zoning Atlas- related items.
BACKGROUND: Please see Section B of Attachment 1 for relevant information.
The "Amendment Outline Form" (Attachment 1) for these amendments was approved by the
BOCC at its October 15, 2013 regular meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Existing staff will complete the necessary work required for this project.
Changing the public hearing process is not expected to cause financial impacts (negative or
positive). Legal ads and mailed notifications, if required, would have to be sent regardless of
the process. Internal work flow, both within the Planning Department and in other County
Departments that have involvement with agenda setting, will need to be updated /changed.
Initial meetings with these departments have indicated that necessary changes can be
accommodated.
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 April 15, 2014 BOCC regular meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 15, 2014 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 -07
Changes to Public Hearing Process
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Land Use Element Map:
From: ---
To- - --
❑ Zoning Map-
From - - - -
To: - - -
❑ Other:
296
❑ Other:
B. RATIONALE
• Purpose /Mission
To consider changes to the current public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan,
Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas amendments. The current public
hearing process is comprised of joint quarterly public hearings with the Planning
Board and BOCC, which requires a quorum of both Boards.
County staff and elected officials received comments during development of the
297
Comprehensive Plan 2008 and Unified Development Ordinance 2011 about the
perceived need to streamline and speed up decisions on applications.
• Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning
Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based
upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning
Board and the Board of County Commissioners'. The following information is offered:
The topic of amending the current quarterly public hearing process was brought up
as part of the work on "Agricultural Support Enterprises" (ASE) because the pre -2010
ASE work included a different approval process for ASE - related projects. The
September 9, 2013 BOCC work session (held at the end of the quarterly public
hearing) materials contain more information about this
topic: _ http:// orangecountync .gov /occlerks /130909.pdf, including staff's concern about
having a different review process for only certain projects. The purpose of the work
session was to obtain BOCC input/direction on the public hearing process, which
staff received. There is not total agreement among BOCC members that the current
process should be changed. However, a majority of the BOCC directed staff to bring
forward proposed changes for public hearing and consideration.
Proposed Changes
The following changes to the public hearing process are being proposed:
• End the quarterly hearings and instead have the BOCC designate a minimum of 8
meetings per year where Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas amendments
can be heard. The 8 meetings (minimum) would be designated each Fall when the
BOCC approves its meeting schedule for the following calendar year; the public
hearing dates could occur in conjunction with any type of meeting on the BOCC
calendar (regular, work session, etc.) — it would be at the discretion of the BOCC
each year.
o It should be noted that public hearings dates between the 10th and the 20th of
the month would generally provide the greatest level of efficiency from a
timing streamlining standpoint. This is because the Planning Board meets on
the first Wednesday of each month (with agenda materials distributed the last
Wednesday of each month). Designating public hearing dates mid -month
means that applications are not "sitting" waiting for further action, as could
happen if the public hearing is held early in the month, and it gives staff time
to research any issues that arise at the public hearing, something that is not
always possible to do when the hearing occurs late in the month since
Planning Board agenda distribution must occur on the last Wednesday of
each month.
o When designating meetings each year, the BOCC may wish to consider
designating meetings that are filmed and available on Granicus so that
interested people, including Planning Board members, can view the public
hearing. It should be noted that the existing quarterly public hearings are not
.�
filmed. It is also Planning staff's understanding from the Clerk's office that the
BOCC is considering filming more of its meetings in the future (e.g., work
sessions) if funding is available.
Stop holding the public hearings as joint hearings with the Planning Board. The
Planning Board is an advisory board comprised of volunteers and there are
sometimes issues of having a quorum of members present for hearings /meetings. A
joint hearing cannot occur without a quorum of members from both Boards. If the
proposed process is adopted, the Planning Board will provide a recommendation to
the BOCC after the public hearing. This would allow Planning Board members to
either attend the public hearing or view the hearing on the internet (if available) after
the hearing occurs but before the Planning Board meeting in order to hear public
comments prior to making a recommendation. The proposed process flow charts of
the current process and the proposed process are included at the end of this Form.
It should be noted that staff is suggesting that the policy of having the BOCC approve
the required legal advertisement would be removed as part of the streamlining effort.
If the BOCC decides to continue the policy of approving the legal advertisement as a
Consent Agenda item, it should be noted that doing so adds approximately 3 weeks
to the front -end of the application deadline date. This is due to agenda deadline
dates to have a Consent Agenda item.
o If the BOCC desires to continue to review the legal advertisement prior to
publication, the BOCC may wish to discuss whether it needs to be an item on
a Consent Agenda or whether the draft legal advertisement can be circulated
to BOCC members via e-mail for comment a few days before publication
deadlines.
Background
As staff indicated at the work session, Orange County's typical review timeframe in
recent years (4 -5 months from application deadline to BOCC decision) compares
favorably to other North Carolina local governments. One of the more significant
differences is that most local governments in North Carolina have a monthly public
hearing cycle rather than the quarterly cycle Orange County adheres to.
It is also notable that the current process was put into place at least 20 years ago
and one of the purposes was so residents who took interest in the types of matters
heard at the quarterly hearings would know in which months the hearings occur.
Dissemination of information was quite different 20+ years ago when compared to
today. The availability of agendas and hearing information on the internet makes it
easier for interested persons to keep apprised of matters in which they are interested
whereas 20+ years ago, interested people likely had to obtain hard copies of
agendas /materials directly from the County Clerk.
Agenda Process
Internal processes in the Planning Department, Manager's Office, and Clerk's office
will need to be updated if the amendments are adopted. Initial meetings between the
departments have indicated that necessary adjustments can be made although it will
299
be a change from existing processes. An example of an internal change is that, in
order to meet statutory requirements, the first legal advertisement for the public
hearing would run on the same day internal departmental agenda review occurs
(generally Wednesday afternoon). The current internal agenda setting process
allows items to be "bumped" from agendas if necessary; public hearing items could
not be "bumped" without incurring costs of running new legal advertisements and
running cancellation ads, if necessary. Additionally, for items that require mailed
notifications, Planning staff would likely have already prepared the notifications for
mailing by the time agenda review occurs, although the actual mail out is on Friday.
If public hearing dates are chosen that do not correspond to a regular BOCC
meeting, for example, holding public hearings on BOCC work session dates, the
internal agenda process is different. However, staff would have little ability to remove
public hearing items that were filed by published application deadline dates.
The existing practice of isolating UDO /Comprehensive Plan- related items on
separate meeting agendas (the quarterly public hearings) likely results in more
predictable BOCC regular meetings since some planning - related items can generate
a great deal of public interest and comment. However, most items in recent years
have not had significant public comment at the quarterly public hearings.
Orange County's practice of holding quarterly public hearings is fairly unique in North
Carolina (staff is aware of only one other local government — the Town of
Hillsborough —that limits public hearing dates to only four times per year). Most local
governments in North Carolina have at least one meeting per month where planning -
related items can be heard (either as part of a regular meeting or as a meeting
completely set aside for planning - related items); some have more than one meeting
per month. It should also be noted that having more potential public hearing dates
per year would likely spread out the same number of items per year over more
meetings (e.g., there would be fewer items per hearing date). The number of items
Orange County typically hears in a given year likely does not warrant a monthly
meeting set aside only for planning - related items since there have been quarterly
public hearing dates with only a small number of "easier" items.
It should be noted that, especially for non - government initiated items, it could be
undesirable to limit the number of items on any particular agenda if the applicant has
met the application deadline date. Staff's informal polling of local government
processes has indicated that most local governments put all applications that were
received by the filing deadline on the designated agenda, even if some must get
tabled to a future meeting due to time constraints; some will call a special meeting in
months that are particularly busy. A small number of local governments limit the
number of items that can be placed on any one agenda or informally work with
applicants to get permission to place items on a later agenda if the agenda for a
particular meeting has gotten very full.
Planning Board Involvement
The existing practice of holding a joint public hearing (governing body /Planning
Board) is also fairly unique (although the Town of Hillsborough also operates this
way). With a joint hearing, a quorum of members of both boards is necessary in
300
order to legitimately hold the hearing. Some local governments have the Planning
Board make a recommendation on items prior to the public hearing while other local
governments have the Planning Board make a recommendation after the public
hearing. Either process can work well, depending on the desires of the local
government. If a recommendation is made before the public hearing, the Planning
Board focuses its review on the technical merits of an item. If a recommendation is
made after the public hearing, the Planning Board's recommendation can take into
consideration comments made at the public hearing. BOCC input at the September
9, 2013 work session leaned strongly toward having the Planning Board make its
recommendation after the public hearing and this is how the proposed amendment
has been written.
• Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open,
,
efficient, and responsive.
• New Statutes and Rules
............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N/A
............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME /MILESTONES /DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
October 15, 2013
b. Quarterly Public Hearin
...............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
February 24. 2014
c. BOCC Uadates /Checkaoints
January 8, 2014 — Planning Board ORC (agenda materials are available to all
interested persons)
February 4, 2014 — approval of legal ad for February quarterly public hearing
Aaril 15. 2014 — receive Plannina Board recommendation and make decision
d. Other
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission /Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements.
a. Planning Board Review:
January 8, 2014 — ORC (Ordinance Review Committee)
The ORC had minor questions and comments which have been
301
incorporated into the draft materials. The Summa Notes from the ORC
p Summary
meeting have been included at the end of this form.
March 5, 2014 - recommendation
b. Advisory Boards:
c. Local Government Review:
Proposed text amendments were sent
to JPA partners (Towns of Chapel Hill
and Carrboro) on January 13, 2014 in
accordance with the JPA Agreement
since any project in the Rural Buffer
requiring a public hearing would be
subject to any new process. To date,
no comments have been received
from the JPA partners.
Planning staff has worked, and will
continue to work, with the County
Clerk and Manager's Office to
ensure the proposed public hearing
process will work as smoothly as
possible with the processes /systems
used by these Departments.
d. Notice Requirements
Consistent with NC State Statutes — legal ad prior to public hearing
e. Outreach:
❑ General Public:
❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup:
❑ Other:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the
pp g
provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid
from FY2013 -14 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing Planning
staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required
to process this amendment.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
If adopted, the amendments would change the existing process used by Orange County
to review Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas
amendments. See section "B" above for additional information.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
302
See Attachment 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary Staff Contact:
Perdita Holtz, AICP
Planning Department
919- 245 -2578
pholtz @orangecountync.gov
Required for SUP, CUD, CZD, and Major
Pre - Application Conference Subdivisions
Strongly recommended for all other projects
Application Submittal Generally —8 weeks prior to QPH, except
August QPH which has deadline in mid -May
DAC (Development Advisory Staff Representatives of various County
Committee) departments and other agencies, as needed
Review /Comments
BOCC Approve Legal Ad for ' Generally —3 weeks prior to QPH, except
QPH August QPH legal ad which is approved at
last BOCC meeting in June
Joint BOCC /Planning Board ' Normally held the last Monday of the month in
Quarterly Public Hearing February, May, August, and November
Staff can often turn materials around after the
QPH to make the first Planning Board meeting
Planning Board
after the QPH (Planning Board meets on the first
Recommendation
Wednesday of each month). If the QPH reveals
that more staff research must be done, projects
may not be ready until the second Planning
0
Board meeting after the QPH (e.g., month+
delay).
BOCC Decision
Unless directed to a date /time certain by the
BOCC at the QPH (it is typical to do so since the
public hearing must be adjourned to a date /time
certain in order to receive the Planning Board
recommendation), the UDO states the Planning
Board shall make its recommendation within
three regularly scheduled meetings (e.g., three
months).
Required for SUP, CUD, CZD, and Major
Pre - Application Conference
Subdivisions
- Strongly recommended for all other projects
Application Submittal
Staff Representatives of various County
DAC (Development Advisory departments and other agencies, as needed
Committee)
Review /Comments
The BOCC would not approve the legal ad in
this process.
Publish Legal Ad / Mail '
Notifications for Public
Hearing
Each fall, when the BOCC adopts its
meeting schedule for the next calendar year,
a minimum of 8 dates (spread throughout
the year) would be designated for potential
public hearings dates for
Public Hearing
UDO /Comprehensive Plan- related items.
(BOCC only)
The public hearings would no longer be
joint BOCC /Planning Board public hearings.
Public hearings would be held open to a
0
date /time certain in order to receive the
Planning Board's recommendation and any
Planning Board
submitted written comments_
Recommendation 1
A
While the Planning Board would not be
required to attend the public hearing as an
official board, individual Planning Board
BOCC Decision members could choose to attend the public
hearing to see /hear the proceedings.
Additionally, depending on the dates chosen
for public hearings and the policy on
videotaping the meetings, video of the public
hearing would likely be available for viewing on
the County's website.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
305
Excerpt of ORC
Meeting Notes
SUMMARY NOTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
.JANUARY 8, 2014
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township
Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At- Large, Chapel Hill Township; Tony
Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At -Large
Chapel Hill Township;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Special
Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Jennifer Leaf, Planner I; Tina Love, Administrative
Assistant II
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS — CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING
PROCESS
To continue review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO to change the existing public
hearing process and to amend other provisions that need to be changed if the public hearing process is
amended.
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator
Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract.
31 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the chart on page 11 is really good, it tells you what's going on. I also like the idea of
32 discontinuing the joint BOCC /Planning Board meetings. It seems like the role of the Planning Board during these
33 meetings tends to be just to sit there and there are other opportunities for the Planning Board to voice its concern.
34 There is nothing to keep Planning Board members from attending the public hearing and I would not object if it was
35 decided that the Planning Board Chair was required to be at the public hearing or at least somebody from the
36 Planning Board. I do think it is good and important when you have citizen input to be able to hear it in addition to
37 just reading it. I think not having the joint meeting is good but I'd like to have a mechanism where someone from
38 the Planning Board is there so they can get more than the word. There are comments from both the
39 Commissioners and the public during the hearing and it would be good to have a member present to hear them.
40
41 Paul Guthrie: Basically, I think this is a good move for a couple of reason. One is the increased number of hearing
42 opportunities which I think can expedite a lot of the procedure and maybe take a little pressure off the planning staff
43 since it gets spread out. They don't have to dump everything into four quarters. I do have a couple of questions.
44 One is what kind of communication summarizing the public hearing will be transmitted to the Planning Board so that
45 the Planning Board can intelligently consider the topic?
46
47 Perdita Holtz: It is unlikely that official quarterly public hearing minutes would be available quick enough for
48 Planning Board meetings. We are envisioning that the Planning Board meeting would occur within two to three
49 weeks after the public hearing and generally meeting minutes take longer than that for the Clerk's office to turn
50 around. It would probably be, if the Planning Board was not going to view the meeting on the internet in the comfort
51 of your own home, similar to what happens now where comments that were made are in the amendment outline
52 form and the abstract and we provide a staff response, as necessary, to those comments. So it would pretty much
53 be a staff report of what took place.
Return to Agenda
C1.
54
55 Pete Hallenbeck: I also like the quicker review and more meetings and less time for the public to get something
56 through. That is certainly the number one point of all of this.
57
58 Perdita Holtz: I should mention that it is probably not going to be less time from application deadline to decision but
59 there will be more opportunities for someone to submit an application. If they miss a deadline, they don't have to
60 wait as long until the next application deadline.
61
62 Paul Guthrie: On page 19, in the new language, Planning Board shall make a recommendation based on
63 information entered into the record at the public hearing but not make the finding required in section 5.3.2A. Does
64 that mean that it is going to be the individual duty of the Planning Board member to look at all the documentation
65 put in the public record at the time of the hearing in order to justify its decision?
66
67 Perdita Holtz: No, this is for Special Use Permits. They don't come along that often but for Class A Special Use
68 Permits there is a 15 page form of yes /no answers that staff fills out for the Planning Board on whether it meets the
69 requirements of various sections such as if they have enough landscaping, if they have enough buffer, etc. and we
70 check yes or no in staff's opinion and then the Planning Board either concurs with that opinion or dissents from that
71 opinion. On that form there are four questions that staff does not make a recommendation on and those are things
72 that the Planning Board has to come to its own conclusion about and the BOCC has to come to its own conclusion
73 as well. Those are the section referenced here and if you were not at the hearing it would be legally murky to make
74 those findings if you weren't in attendance so that is what this is in reference to. I should also mention that on page
75 17, the language of 2.3.10b needs to be revised a little bit before it goes to public hearing so that will be changing
76 from what you see in front of you here.
77
78 Paul Guthrie: You have similar language in 2.8.8b. Another question, have you thought about how you would
79 space the 8 mandatory hearing dates?
80
81 Perdita Holtz: It is going to be up to the BOCC to decide that but we as staff are going to recommend to them that
82 they probably do hearings in the months of February, March, April, May, September, October, November. January
83 they only have one meeting per year and it is usually very full and in December those are the last meetings before
84 the break so we don't want to put them there plus the agenda deadlines are different due to the holidays. June is off
85 as it is very budget heavy month when they have to adopt the budget by the end of the month. That is our staff
86 recommendation but the BOCC will stagger them however they want.
87
88 Paul Guthrie: Again in 2.8.8e, which is existing language, do you think that existing language is a little too
89 restrictive given the new format of not having the joint hearings? Essentially, the first time we'll be exposed to
90 testimony will be in the presentation at the Planning Board meeting and does that mean we cut off verbal testimony.
91
92 Perdita Holtz: The reason it was adopted was the BOCC did not want to have oral evidence at the Planning Board
93 meetings that they did not also hear. That is why this language exists. The meeting at the Planning Board is not
94 going to be an official public hearing it is just a regular Planning Board meeting and technically people will not be
95 able to come and speak if they don't also have their comments in writing. If you think that is not desirable, you can
96 make a recommendation to look at that or change the language.
97
98 Paul Guthrie: I would encourage you to think about it because, and I'm wondering if that may even need to be
99 elaborated on a little bit, because if somebody wants to come the Planning Board meeting or only knows about it
100 through the Planning Board then we are advising County Commissioners who have already had a hearing. It
101 bothers me a little bit.
102
Return to Agenda
307
103 Pete Hallenbeck: I think that could be mentioned to the Commissioners but it is definitely their call. I see their
104 concern that the Planning Board meeting would not be a public hearing. If people show to speak all of a sudden it is
105 a public hearing but the Planning Board is a mechanism for receiving input.
106
107 Paul Guthrie: Does that mean inversely if someone wants to speak on the subject on our agenda, they cannot
108 speak.
109
110 Pete Hallenbeck: The way I read it is if they have something written down they are allowed to come and give it to
111 the Board. I think the Planning Board could interact with them if they had questions or clarifications. The only thing
112 1 would worry about with someone giving just oral evidence at the Planning Board meeting is that has to be carefully
113 documented as we certainly don't a scenario where someone says they said something at a meeting and there is
114 no documentation of it. The public hearing is better equipped for that. Finally, the Commissioners may, for the
115 same reason that I was, want to have Planning Board member present at the public hearings. I think the
116 Commissioners get a lot from hearing people talk and how they speak and how passionate they are and that might
117 be another reason they want to make sure that if somebody's just doing an oral presentation, they hear it. If staff
118 wanted to bounce that off the Commissioners and verify, yes we want oral presentations only at the County
119 Commissioners' meetings and anything presented at Planning Board should be written, they can verify that. I am a
120 little nervous about the Planning Board taking oral presentations we have to be careful of the interactions and
121 cannot promise anything like they can. The vote we have is not binding and the Commissioners are not at Planning
122 Board meetings to get all those nuances that come with an oral presentation.
123
124 Paul Guthrie: I have some concerns in the bigger picture than this topic. Putting that kind of restrictions on
125 communications to a citizen advisory board. I think it's a road we have to be very careful about how we define
126 because it could have major implications on the ability of this Board to function in what I perceive is what it's
127 capacity is. That goes beyond this.
128
129 Pete Hallenbeck: I do believe it does have to be carefully spelled out. You could have problems if you said all you
130 can do is come and give us written paper and I think you would have a problem if anyone could just walk in and
131 start talking and interacting and how the Planning Board would convey that to the Commissioners.
132
133 Paul Guthrie: I'm done.
134
135 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Return to Agenda
C1:
Attachment 2
Amendment Package to Change Existing Public Hearing Process
Notes
The pages that follow contain the amendments necessary to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text to adopt changes to the existing public hearing process for
Comprehensive Plan- and Unified Development Ordinance - related hearing items.
Proposed additions /changes to existing UDO text are depicted in . Some of the proposed
changes utilize footnotes to provide a brief explanation as to rationale. 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: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /Ordinances.asp
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.
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. Text with a large "X" is not proposed for
deletion; proposed deletions are shown in rod- str;Lo+hre4g4 text.
Return to Agenda
309
ARTICLE 2: PROCEDURES
The following table provides a brief synopsis of the review and decision - making processes for
development applications.
Return to Agenda
JEEEW�R=REVIEW •
r
ZONING/DEVELOPMENT EROSION DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY
REVIEw RELATED PLANNING CONTROL
BOARD O
PROCEDURES DIRECTOR OFFICER COMMITTEE
ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
DA
Zoning Compliance R and DM R R
Permits
Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Control
R and DM
Permits
Stormwater Management
R and DM
Plans
UDO Text Amendments
R
R
R [1 ]
DM and
PH
Zoning Atlas
R
R
R [ 1 ]
DM and
Amendments
PH
D d H
]A
DM and
Special Use Permits
R
R
R
Class B
Class
PH
Class A
Zoning Variances
R
R
DM and PH
Conditional Use
R
R
R
R [1]
DM and
PH
Appeals /Interpretations
R
R
DM and PH
Comprehensive Plan
R
R [ 1 ]
DM and
Amendments
PH
Subdivision Related
Procedures
Exempt
R and DM
Minor
R and DM
R
R
Major
R
R
R
R and DM
R and
[21
DM
Conditional Use
R
R
R
R [1]
R, DM,
and PH
Appeal
NOTES
[1]
a heaFiRg. The PlaRRORg PGard will have the item refiawed tA- it and. shall have 61p te 9Q days te
P611910G
,, o .,+ ,, ., appli atilt. A public hearing is held by the BOCC after which the item is referred to the
the
Planning Board for recommendation. The referral motion shall hold the public hearing open to a date /time
certain in order for the BOCC to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any written comments
submitted after the public hearing.
[2] The Planning Board approves the Concept Plan for a Major Subdivision and then makes a recommendation
on the Preliminary Plat to the BOCC.
Return to Agenda
2.2.8
Subsequent Applications
(A) If the Board of County Commi enies ion, or the application is
withdrawn subsequent to notic is e on, no application for the same
or similar amen ecting the same property or a portion o ubmitted for
one year. Said one year period begins on the date of denial or withdraw ,
appropriate.
2.3.1 Review and Approval Flow Chart
The review and approval process for
Comprehensive Plan Amendments is
shown in the procedure's flowchart.
2.3.2 Generally
(A) The Comprehensive Plan shall be
so prepared that all or individual
elements and parts thereof may
be adopted and /or amended by
the Board of Commissioners.
(B) For the purpose of establishing
and maintaining sound, stable,
and desirable development within
Orange County, the
Comprehensive Plan or portion
thereof shall not be amended
except as follows:
(1) Because of changed or
changing conditions in a
particular area or areas of
the County;
(2) To correct an error or
omission; or
(3) In response to a change
in the policies, objectives,
principles or standards
governing the physical
development of the
County.
2.3.3 Initiation of Amendments
An amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan or portion thereof may be initiated by:
(A) The Board of Commissioners on
its own motion;
(B) The Planning Board;
(C) Application, by any person or
agency, which accurately and
completely sets forth the reason(s)
for the proposed amendment as
Comprehensive Submission of
Plan Application
Amendment
Classification -
Text or' and 116-° Plan (map)
Future Land Use Map
Text I I and " °° Plan (Map)Future
Land Use Map
Publish Publish Legal Ad
Legal Ad Post Sign
Mail Notice
if PFInGlpal Amendment,
.A.M.. ee.n. dfirn.. e n i P Y4.11G
HeaFing On Feb, May,
Aijq-9F N9v
Public Hearing
Staff Recommendation
to Planning Board
Staff and PB Recommendation
to BOCC
BOCC Decision
310
Return to Agenda
311
prescribed in Section 2.3.2(B); or
(D) The Planning Director.
2.0.E ;lassifisatien of Amendments'
2.3.5 Public Hearing Required
A public hearing shall be held before adoption of any proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The Board of County Commissioners shall hear applications and receive
public comment for proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments OR a n„ahorl„ D„hl, uoAI,-Onn at
a meeting designated for UDO /Comprehensive Plan- related public hearings. Dates for said
meetings shall be designated each year in accordance with Section 2.8.12.
2.3.6 Notice Requirements for Public Hearings
(A) Notice of the public hearing shall be given by publishing said notice at least twice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the County, stating the time and place of such
hearing and the substance of the proposed amendment.
(B) This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two consecutive weeks with the first notice
appearing not less than ten days 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.
(C) The minimum published size of the notice shall be 25 square inches.
(D) In the case of amendments to the I and Use DI^^ 'm^^` Future Land Use Ma P2, the
Planning Director shall prominently post a notice of the public hearing on the site
proposed for the land use change or on an adjacent public street or highway right of way
not less than ten days before the date set for the public hearing.
If the proposed text amendments are adopted, public hearings will no longer be held on only a quarterly basis.
Because of this, the text in Section 2.3.7 (A) (B) and (C) becomes obsolete which means that the text in this section
(2.3.4) is effectively no longer relevant. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan could be heard at any of the
public hearings that will be designated each year for UDO /Comprehensive Plan- related items. Note that all
subsequent subsections on 2.3 will be renumbered with the removal of Section 2.3.4.
2 The official name of the map was clarified /changed on February 7, 2012.
Return to Agenda
312
(1) When multiple parcels are included within a proposed' °"d "°° D1on (map)
Future Land Use Map amendment, a posting on each individual parcel is not
required, but the county shall post sufficient notices to provide reasonable notice
to interested persons.
(E) In the case of amendments to the' O1ft "O° D1on (m°^` Future Land Use Map, written
notice of the public hearing shall be sent by first -class mail to all property owners, as
listed in the Orange County tax records, whose property is affected (property that is
included in the proposed Iand use -plaR Future Land Use Map amendment) and all
property owners within 500 feet. Said notice shall be mailed at least 14 days, but not
more than 25 days, prior to the date of the public hearing.
2.3.7 Consideration of Amendments3
(A)
P61bliG hGaFiRg OR February.
(B)
q iortorly niihlin hooriRgS hold in May August, and WAvomher
(C)
(D) A proposed amendment may be considered in conjunction with a rezoning request for the
same property if the requests are in compliance with an adopted small area plan.
(E) Requests for a rezoning not in compliance with an adopted small area plan, conditional
use district, and /or special use permit may only be considered at subsequent hearings or
meetings following approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
2.3.8 Application Requirements
(A) Generally
(1) All applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall be submitted
on forms supplied by the Planning Department and shall be signed.
(2) Three copies of the application shall be submitted to the Planning Director.
(3) Before accepting any amendment application, the Planning Director shall ensure
that it contains all required information, as specified in this Ordinance.
Applications which are not complete, or otherwise do not comply with the
provisions of this Ordinance, shall not be accepted by the Planning Director, but
shall be returned to the applicant, with a notation by the Planning Director of the
deficiencies in the application.
(B) Contents of Application
Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, without limiting the right to file
additional material, shall contain at least the following:
(1) For amendments to the' °nd "°° D1on (map` Future Land Use Map within the
Land Use Element, a map at a legible scale adequately illustrating the land which
would be covered by the proposed map amendment, and a complete list of
Property Identification Numbers (PIN) for the properties;
s If the proposed text amendments are adopted, public hearings will no longer be held on only a quarterly basis.
Because of this, the text in (A) (B) and (C) becomes obsolete. Automatic renumbering of (D) and (E) to (A) and (B)
will occur upon deletion.
Return to Agenda
313
(2) For amendments to the Comprehensive Plan text, a copy of the existing text
provision(s) which the applicant proposes for amendment, and a written
statement which describes in detail changes which the applicant proposes to
make to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and the rationale for the proposed
amendment consistent with the standards established in this Ordinance; and
(3) All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support
of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
2.3.9 Analysis and Recommendation
The Planning Director shall 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.
2.3.10 Planning Board Review
(A) Following the public hearing, all proposed amendments shall be referred to the Planning
Board for consideration and recommendation.
(B) The Board of County Commissioners shall direct the Planning Board to provide a
recommendation by a date certain 4. The date certain shall not be less than 30 calendar
days from the date of referral unless there is reasonable confidence the Planning Board
can return a recommendation in less than 30 days5.
(`nmmissinnors roes not sn diront the DlaRRORg Rnorrl shall make its ronnmmonr-atinn
(`nmmissinnors gFa Rts an ovtonsinn
(C) If the Planning Board fails to make a recommendation within the time allotted in
subsection (B), the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
without a Planning Board recommendation.
(D) Amendments initiator- by OFaRgG GG Rty shall not ho si 1biont to time limitations other
PFGGGSS
(E) Evidence not presented at the public hearing may be submitted in writing to the Planning
Board for consideration prior to the Planning Board's recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners. The Planning Board may consider additional oral evidence only
if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing.'
4 It has been the County's practice for several years to hold the public hearing open until a date /time certain in order
to receive the Planning Board's recommendation. A determination was made by the former County attorney several
years ago that this practice was necessary in order to meet State requirements for the public hearing process since
the Planning Board recommendation and any written comments received are technically part of the public hearing.
5 NCGS § 153A- 344states that: Subsequent to initial adoption of a zoning ordinance, all proposed amendments to
the zoning ordinance or zoning map shall be submitted to the planning board for review and comment. If no written
report is received from the planning board within 30 days of referral of the amendment to that board, the board of
county commissioners may proceed in its consideration of the amendment without the planning board report. The
board of commissioners is not bound by the recommendations, if any, of the planning board.
6 This section is irrelevant due to the practice of holding the public hearing open until a date /time certain in order to
receive the Planning Board's recommendation. (E) will be renumbered (D).
At the January 8, 2014 ORC (Ordinance Review Committee) meeting, a Planning Board member questioned the
practice of requiring comments in writing in order for a resident to address the Planning Board. Staff explained that
the purpose of requirement is twofold: 1) to ensure the Planning Board meeting does not become a second
unofficial "public hearing," which is a possibility on any controversial actions, and 2) to ensure the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) receives the same information the Planning Board has in reaching a decision. If
residents were not required to also submit in writing any oral comments made to the Planning Board, the BOCC
could be unaware of some oral comments.
Return to Agenda
2.7.1 Generally
(A) Any use or development designated by applicable zoning district regulations contained
within Article 5 as a special use, or as
allowed only pursuant to a special use
permit (either Class A or Class B),
may be established in that district only
after the use or development is
authorized by a validly issued and
recorded special use permit.
(B) This section sets forth required review
and approval procedures for
submittal, review, and approval of
applications for special use permit.
(C) A special use permit authorizes its
holder to use or develop a particular
parcel of land in a particular way, as
specified by the terms and conditions
of the special use permit.
(D) A special use permit imposes on its
holder the responsibility of ensuring
that the authorized use or
development continues to comply with
the terms and conditions of approval.
(E) Issuance of a special use permit does
not relieve the holder of the special
use permit of the additional
responsibility of obtaining a building
permit or any other permit or approval
required by any other applicable law.
2.7.2 Review and Approval Flow Chart
The review and approval process for Special
Use Permits is shown in the procedure's
flowchart.
2.7.3 Application Requirements
(A) Applications for a Special Use shall be
submitted on forms provided by the
Planning Department in accordance
with Section 2.2 of this Ordinance.
(B) Applications shall include:
(1) A full and accurate description
of the proposed use, including
its location, appearance, and
operational characteristics.
(2) The name(s) and address(es)
of the owner(s) of the property
involved.
Staff Application Review and
Formal Recommendation
Class B SUP
scheduled for
review by
Board of
Adjustment at
a public
hearing
Class A SUP
scheduled for
review by
BOCC f
Planning BG
at a quaFferiy
public hearing
Staff advertises
meeting (newspaper
ad, property posting,
adjacent property
letters)
Planning Board recommendation
sent to County Commissioners for
decision
(3) Relevant information needed to show compliance with the general and specific
standards governing the Special Use (See Articles 5 and 6).
314
Return to Agenda
Board of
public hearing
Adjustment
held in a quasi -
holds public
judicial format to
hearing in a
review
quasi - judicial
application
format and
renders a
decision on
Application
application
#n- r I.A.f C-3 r referred
to Planning Board
\
for review and
recommendation
Planning Board recommendation
sent to County Commissioners for
decision
(3) Relevant information needed to show compliance with the general and specific
standards governing the Special Use (See Articles 5 and 6).
314
Return to Agenda
315
2.76 Notice Requirements for Class B Special Use Permits
Notice Requirements for Class B Special Use Permits shall follow the procedures in S n
X112.6.
2.7.7 Natul�e of Proceedinqs
(A) e review of Special Use Permit applications shall be conducted duri g a public hearing
by e decision - making board.
(B) The re iew of a Special Use Permit application is a quasi- judicia rocess, where the
Board re onsible for rendering a decision acts much like a p el of judges. The Board
hears factu evidence and sworn testimony presented at a evidentiary hearing, and
then makes fi ings of fact supported by competent, subs ntial, and material evidence.
(C) The chair or pres ing officer of the hearing shall swea all parties intending to present
evidence or testimo during the hearing.
(D) The chair or presiding icer may take whatever ction is necessary to limit testimony to
the presentation of new f tual evidence that i material to the application, to ensure fair
and orderly proceedings, an to otherwise p mote the efficient and effective gathering of
evidence. Such actions may in ude:
(1) Barring the presentation o obvi us hearsay evidence,
(2) Barring the presentation of - expert opinion,
(3) Interrupting digressions i to imm erial testimony,
(4) Interrupting repetitiv estimony,
(5) Reasonably limiti g the time allotted ea witness or cross - examination,
(6) Providing for e selection of spokesperson to represent groups of persons with
common in rests,
(7) Interrup i g personal attacks, and /or
/)theOrd ng an end to disorderly conduct.
oard finds compliance with the general stand\which cific rules governing
c use, and that the use complies with all requirete sand standards,
tion must be approved unless the Board shall , in me specific
at:
e use will not maintain or promote the public hfety and g eral lfare, if located where proposed and developeerated acco ing to the n as submitted.
osing approval of the application on the grounde use will not pro to
the public health, safety and general welfare shall have thn of establishing, by
competent material and substantial evidence, the specific r in which the propose
use does not satisfy the requirements for appr oval of the application for a Special Use.
2.7.8 Review and Decision
(A) For Class A Special Use permits, the following shall apply:
(1) The Board of County Commissioners shall review the
application during a regularly scheduled public hearing.
(2) Following review at a public hearing, the Special Use permit application shall be
referred to the Planning Board for its consideration and recommendation.
Return to Agenda
316
(3) The Board of County Commissioners may shall direct the Planning Board to
If thp- Roard of County
provide a recommendation by a date certain$.
(`gmmissigners Ages ng4 sg rlirer4 Oho Planning QgaFd- droll make i4s
(4) If the Planning Board fails 4g make o rennmmenrJo4inn y.githin Oho time allgttAd
9 The
Planning Board shall make a general recommendation on whether a project
should be approved or denied based upon information entered into the record at
the public hearing but shall not make the findings required in Section 5.3.2(A).'o
(5) After receipt of any Planning Board recommendation and closure of the public
hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall take action upon the
application. This action shall be one of the following:
(a) Approval;
(b) Approval with conditions; or
(c) Denial.
For Class B Special Use Permits, the following shall apply: /
1) The Board of Adjustment shall review the application during a regular!
scheduled public hearing.
(2) Board of Adjustment shall conduct the hearing in acc ance within the
provisi s detailed in this Section as well as those co fined within Section 2.12.
(3) After comple i of the public hearing, the Bo of Adjustment shall take action
upon the applica This action shall be e of the following:
(a) Approval;
(b) Approval with cond' or
(c) Denial.
2.7.9 Standards of Evaluation
The following specif' tandards shall be used in deciding on an applic 'on:
(A) The lect meets all applicable design standards and other require is of this
finance.
The development can reasonably be completed within the vesting period reques if
any.
s It has been the County's practice for several years to hold the public hearing open until a date /time certain in order
to receive the Planning Board's recommendation. A determination was made by the former County attorney several
years ago that this practice was necessary in order to meet State requirements for the public hearing process.
9 This section is irrelevant due to the practice of holding the public hearing open until a date /time certain in order to
receive the Planning Board's recommendation.
10 Because the Planning Board will not officially attend the quasi-judicial public hearing (individual members may
choose to attend but a quorum of Planning board members will not be necessary in order to conduct the public
hearing), the Planning Board may not make findings. However, the Planning Board may make a general
recommendation to the BOCC on whether a project should be approved or denied. Alternatively, the Planning
Board could be removed from the approval process for Class A Special Use Permits (and apparently was not part of
the process more than 10 years ago, but was made part of the process via procedural policy several years ago which
became codified when the UDO was adopted in 2011). However, it could be problematic to implement this idea
from a procedural standpoint when a project might require both a rezoning and an SUP (as in the case of Conditional
Use). For this reason, staff is recommending that the Planning Board recommendation on Class A SUPS would be a
general recommendation rather than one that requires that findings be made.
Return to Agenda
317
(B) For amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance text:
(1) A copy of the existing text provision(s) which the applicant proposes for
amendment, and
(2) A written statement which describes in detail the changes the applican proposes
to make.
(C) The Ileged error in the Zoning Atlas and /or Unified Development Ordina e text that
woul e corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explan ion of such error
in the Z ing Atlas and /or Unified Development text and detailed rea ns how the
proposed mendment will correct the alleged error;
(D) The change r changing conditions, if any, in the area or in th ounty generally, which
makes the prop sed Zoning Atlas and /or Unified Developme Ordinance text
amendment reas ably necessary to promote the public he th, safety and general
welfare;
(E) The manner in which t proposed Zoning Atlas and/ o Unified Development Ordinance
text amendment will carr out the intent and purpos of the adopted Comprehensive Plan
or part thereof; and
(F) A traffic impact study as reXeier ection 6.
(G) For amendments to the SpHaza Area Overlay District, pertaining to a Letter
of Map Amendment:
(1) An elevation certificer an MT -1, MT -2, or MT -EZ (forms available
through FEMA), or
(2) A "No- Impact" analtter Map Revision.
(H) All other circumstances, facasons t t the applicant offers in support of the
proposed Zoning Atlas andevelopm t Ordinance text amendment.
2.8.4 Applications for Amendment /Joint Planning Area
Applications for amendment to the Orange County Unified Dev pment Ordinance and Zoning
Atlas for the purpose of in rporating the provisions of the Chapel Xill Land Development
Ordinance (and Zoning aps) and /or the Carrboro Land Use Ordina e (and Zoning Maps) shall
be processed as spec ied herein and as specified in the Joint Plannin greement adopted
November 2, 1987, nd as amended from time to time.
Any text amen ments adopted by Orange County shall be adopted by referen as though fully
set forth her n. Any map amendments adopted by Orange County shall be offi Ily denoted on
the Count oning Atlas. Where there is inconsistency between the amendment p cedures
contain herein and those contained in the Joint Planning Agreement, the provisio of the Joint
Plann g Agreement shall apply.
2.8.5 Ay(alysis and Recommendation
The Planning Director shall cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon t
analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of
County Commissioners.
2.8.6 Public Hearing Required
A public hearing shall be held before adoption of any proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment and /or
text amendment to this Ordinance. The Board of County Commissioners and the DlaRRORg E3eaFd
shall hear applications and receive public comment for Zoning Atlas amendments and /or text
amendments to this Ordinance 'R a Q aFte y P bliG HeaFOPn at a meeting designated for
UDO /Comprehensive Plan- related public hearings. Dates for said meetings shall be designated
each year in accordance with Section 2.8.12.
Return to Agenda
M
2.8-7,_ Notice of Public Hearings
(AT-,,_ Notice of the public hearing to review the application and receive public c ment shall be
',Published at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the c ty, stating the
tim d place of the hearing and the substance of the proposed endment.
(B) Said notic all appear in said newspaper for two succes e weeks with the first notice
appearing not than ten days nor more than 25 da efore the date set for the public
hearing. In compu the notice period, the day o blication is not to be included, but
the day of the hearing is be included.
(C) In the case of amendments to zonin las, the Planning Director shall post on the
affected property a notice of the pu earing at least ten days prior to the date of said
hearing.
(D) In the case of amendmen o the Zoning Atlas, ritten notice shall be sent by certified
mail to the affected pr erty owner and all adjacen operty owners at least 15 days, but
not more than 25 ys, before the public hearing date. .acent property owners are
those whose mes and addresses are currently listed in th range County tax records
and who roperty lies within 500 feet of the affected property.
(E) If ndments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the County, notice II be sent by
st class mail to all affected property owners and to all adjacent property o rs within
500 feet as provided in (D) above.
(F) The Planning Director shall certify the mailing of all notices to the Board of County
Commissioners.
2.8.8 Planning Board Review
(A) Following the public hearing, all proposed amendments shall be referred to the Planning
Board for consideration and recommendation.
(B) The Board of County Commissioners may shall direct the Planning Board to provide a
recommendation by a date certain.
rlirert Oho Dlonninry Beard droll mole itc rernmmenrlotinn y.,Othin throe reg6linrhi
The date certain shall not be less than 30 calendar
days from the date of referral unless there is reasonable confidence the Planning Board
can return a recommendation in less than 30 days. 11
(C) If the Planning Board fails to make a recommendation within the time allotted in
subsection (B) above, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendation.
(D)
PFGGGSS.
(E) Evidence not presented at the public hearing may be submitted in writing to the Planning
Board for consideration prior to the Planning Board's recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners. The Planning Board may consider additional oral evidence only
if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. 13
2.8.9 Action by Board of County Commissioners
(A) The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the proposed
amendment until the Planning Board either makes its recommendation or takes no action
on the application as prescribed in Section 2.8.8(C).
" See footnotes 4 and 5 for further explanation.
12 This section is irrelevant due to the practice of holding the public hearing open until a date /time certain in order to
receive the Planning Board's recommendation. (E) will be renumbered (D).
13 See footnote 47 for additional information about subsection (E).
Return to Agenda
(B) In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence
presented at the public hearing and any submitted written evidence that was considered
by the Planning Board in making its recommendation.
2.8.'hQ Text Revisions Pertaininq to Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Provisio
The Erosion Control Officer shall review all of the North Carolina Sedim ation Control
Commission's revisions to the State's Model Soil Erosions and Sedi ntation Control
finance and, within 90 days of receipt of the recommended re ions, submit draft
ame ents to the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Cc fission for its
consideNion and comments.
(B) Within 150 da after receipt of the North Carolina S imentation Control Commission's
comments, Oran County shall formally cons ide roposed amendments and, to the
extent deemed neces ry by the Board of Co y Commissioners, incorporate the
amendments into this Or ance.
(C) Text amendments to this OrdiftQceWsoil erosion and sedimentation control provisions
shall comply with the requiremenIV4Q effect for any other text amendment.
2.8.11 Text Revisions Pertaining to St�water P
(A) The Erosion Control ficer shall review all of th State Environmental Management
Commission's re ions to the State's Model Stormv ter Ordinance and, within 90 days
of receipt of t recommended revisions, submit draft a endments to the State
Environm al Management Commission for its consideraft&Q and comments.
(B) With 150 days after receipt of the State Environmental Manag ent Commission's
c ments, Orange County shall formally consider proposed amen nts and, to the
extent deemed necessary by the Board of County Commissioners, inco rate the
amendments into this Ordinance.
Text amendments to this Ordinance for stormwater provisions shall comply with
requirements in effect for any other text amendment.
2.8.12 Setting Public Hearing Dates
(A) The Board of County Commissioners shall adopt a meeting schedule that designates a
minimum of eight dates annually, spread throughout the year, for potential public
hearings for UDO /Comprehensive Plan- related items.
(B) The Planning Director shall establish and publish application due dates for each potential
public hearing in a timely manner after the Board of County Commissioners adopts its
meeting schedule.
2.9.1 Conditionalttse`District (CUD)
(A) Generally
(1) Any use permitte der the CUD proc shall conform to all applicable
development regulatio r the sponding general use zoning district as well
as any specific developme3Ps<dards outlined within this Ordinance.
(2) The Board of Cou ommissioners, eviewing a CUD application, may
impose suc asonable conditions upon appfQval of a CUD request as will
affor ection of the public health, safety, and g ral welfare, ensure that
stantial justice is done, and ensure equitable treatme
Only those conditions mutually agreed to by the applicant and the and of
County Commissioners may be imposed on a CUD application.
319
Return to Agenda
2.11.6 Notice Requirements
Notice requirements shall follow Section 2.12.6(A). Other subsections of Section �?C 2.12.6 14
are not applicable to applications for an appeal of an interpretation.
2.12.1 General Provisions
( The Board shall act on all applications before it.
(B) The Board shall act on any appeal of a Stop Work Order issued by the Pl/ngrpDirector
at its next regularly scheduled meeting or at a special meeting called fort ose.
2.12.2 Quasi- JudiFial Proceedin
(A) The B \theB f Adjustment acts in a quasi - judicial capacity. Howeve , it is not intended
that iteedings be conducted as formally as those before co rts.
(B) The rrocedure and evidence set forth in this Ordinan shall be followed to
protecn rests of all parties and the public.
(C) The pg o er shall administer oaths to all witness s and shall make rulings
neces pres ve fairness, order, or proper decor in any matter before the Board
of Adjnt.
(D) Any mr of the Boa of Adjustment or any in rested party may object to, and the
presidficer may excl e, any evidence, to imony, or statement that is deemed
incomt, irrelevant, im terial, or unduly epetitious and therefore fails to reasonably
addreissues before the oan of Adi tment.
2.12.3 Evidence and Testimo
(A) Interested Party
(1) Any interested party may resen evidence or testimony, cross - examine
witnesses, inspect doc ents, an offer evidence or testimony in explanation or
rebuttal.
(2) Any member of th Board of Adjustmen ay question any interested party.
(3) Persons other an interested parties may ake competent, relevant, and
material co ents.
(B) Subpoenas
(1) The B rd of Adjustment may subpoena witnesses nd compel the production of
evid ce.
(2) V person fails or refuses to obey a subpoena issued PuNuant to this
ubsection, the Board of Adjustment may apply to the Gen al Court of Justice
for an order requiring that its order be obeyed, and the Cour\apr sdiction
to issue those orders after notice to all proper parties.
No testimony of any witness before the Board of Adjustmenta
subpoena issued in exercise of the power conferred by this ay be
used against the witness in any civil or criminal action, other ution
for false swearing committed on the exami nation.
(4) Anyone who, while under oath during a proceeding before the Board of
Adjustment, willfully swears falsely, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
14 Typographical error that staff recommends correcting as part of this amendment package.
320
Return to Agenda
The facility shall be removed within 12 months from the date
spplicant ceases use of the facility. /
(d) Once th astructure is removed the propert e owner shall obtain
the necessary ion Control permits to - stabilize the property. The
time frame for comp Iesshall be rmined by the Orange County
Erosion Control Officer.
(e) The owner shall pro financial sec i in form and amount acceptable
to the Count ecure the expense of dis ling and removing said
structur .
(f) on removal of the facility, the Department shall cause a h-otie to be
recorded within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds office indi—cat<c
that the Class A Special Use Permit has been revoked.
5.10.1 In
The regulations contained herein a to provid afe and efficient integration of
facilities necessary for the provision of a it mmunications services through
the community with the o fishing reliable wireless service o overnmental
agencies sponders in a manner that provides for the public safety and gener
citizens.
5.10.2 Master Telecommunications Plan ( "Plan ")
(A) The Plan is intended to assist providers in their search for suitable locations to build their
service network. The County may develop the Plan (map), which would display
locations within the County's zoning jurisdiction where property owners have expressed
formal, written, interest in allowing construction of telecommunications equipment.
(B) Information that may be shown on the base Plan will include, but not limited to:
(1)
Existing towers,
(2)
Major transmission lines,
(3)
County- defined Natural Areas,
(4)
Historic properties,
(5)
Scenic corridors,
(6) Known bird migratory patterns through the County,
(7) Voluntary Agricultural Districts, and
(8) Publicly -owned or quasi - public lands.
(C) In order to participate in the Plan, all owner(s), or their legally binding representatives,
shall submit an application on a form prepared by the Planning Department requesting
inclusion.
(D) All telecommunication providers who elect to construct facilities on properties in the Plan
shall provide all necessary and requested information to the County's
telecommunications consultant.
(E) Modification of the Plan may be considered aRR61ally at the February Quarterly 126ibliG
at any of the meetings
321
Return to Agenda
designated for UDO /Comprehensive Plan- related public hearings 13. The fee for
modifying the Plan shall be that as set forth in the Orange County Schedule of Fees.
(F) Withdrawal from the Plan is permitted if any owner submits, to the Planning Director, a
notarized statement requesting same. Upon receipt of the request, including any fee for
modifying the Plan as set forth in the Orange County Schedule of Fees, the Planning
Director shall inform interested parties that the property has been withdrawn from
consideration. Removal of the property from the Plan shall be processed as a
modification as detailed herein.
5.'P,3 Annual Telecommunications Projection Meeting (ATPM)
A) Purpose and Outcome
(1) The purpose of the ATPM meeting is to allow for a complete review of co catior
opportunities, address coverage issues, and discuss the location of ne ded
telecommunication support structures with providers who intent on s mitting
development applications for action by the County. The intended tcome of the
meeting is to allow the County and interested parties to develop plan for facility
deployment within the County that provides reasonable cover e based on the
n eds of the County and its residents, while minimizing the otal number of
nee ed telecommunication support facilities, including i imizing the
intrust ness of such facilities, and encouraging the d elopment of a more
efficient lecommunication network.
(2) The intende outcome of the meeting is an and tanding amongst the Planning
Director and p eiders on areas of the County here telecommunication support
facilities are nee d and application reques or the year should be focused.
(B) Applicability
(1) By December 31St of eac calendar ar, telecommunication providers shall
submit to the Planning Dire or a an indicating proposed search rings for
anticipated telecommunicatio pport structures. This plan shall identify areas
where providers are looking I ate facilities, as well as identify those areas of
the County that are under s rved b existing facilities.
(2) As of the effective date f this Ordinan amendment any pending applications
that have not receive a zoning complian e permit or a special use permit shall
meet all requirem is of this Ordinance, inc ding, but not limited to submission
deadlines, app li tion standards and processi , excluding the ATPM
requirement.
(C) Meeting Specific
(1) The eting shall occur by the end of January of each c lendar year.
(2) AtVhdees shall include all carriers and tower companies wh have either filed
plications the previous year or anyone who has expressed interest in filing
/(4) an application to construct a telecommunication support facility in the County.
The County shall notify each party of the date, time, and place of the eeting no
later than 30 days prior to the meeting.
Those individuals /firms intent on submitting development applications are
expected to attend the meeting. While a lack of attendance will not prevent t
submittal of an application, it will prevent the applicant's ability to participate in
the discussions outlining the areas of concentration for the location of
13 Since the dates for public hearings may change from year to year if the public hearing process change
amendments are adopted, it is not possible to pinpoint a date for hearings. Therefore, staff is suggesting that any
entity that would like to modify the Master Telecom Plan be permitted to apply for any of the public hearing dates
where UDO /Comprehensive Plan items can be considered.
322
Return to Agenda