The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 09-08-2014 - C5ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 8, 2014 Action Agenda Item No. C.5 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: The intent of the proposed changes is to offer more opportunities for review of development applications or zoning changes and to clarify the process for the various affected parties. 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 November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. WA 4. Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 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 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) AMENDMENT OUTLINE UDO / Zoning- 2013 -07 Chanaes to Public Hearina Process A. AMENDMENT TYPE Map Amendments ❑ Land Use Element Map: From: --- To: - -- ❑ Zoning Map: From: - - - To: - - - ❑ Other:. Text Amendments ❑ Comprehensive Plan Text: Section(s): ® UDO Text: ❑UDO General Text Changes ❑UDO Development Standards ❑UDO Development Approval Processes Section(s): 2.1, 2.3, 2.7, 2.8, and 5.10.2. ❑ Other: • 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. 1 83 IM County staff and elected officials received comments during development of the 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 /occierks /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 for land use and planning - related matters 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 2 E:F 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. o The September 9, 2013 work session materials included flow charts depicting other possible processes. Staff received fairly strong input at the work session that the Planning Board should make its recommendation after the public hearing, so the proposed amendments have been written to implement this process. 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 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 LIDO /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. Currently, quarterly public hearing agendas are normally posted to the website at least 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing. If land use public hearings become part of the BOCC agendas, the materials for the public hearing would be posted along with the BOCC agenda (generally 4 calendar days prior to the meeting date). 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 4 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 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 with access to the content of the public hearing and this is how the proposed amendment has been written. Closure of Public Hearings; Rewording of Agenda Headings In April 2014, Planning staff became aware that the BOCC may also wish to, discuss the current process related to closing public hearings and /or how the closure of public hearings appears on the BOCC agenda. The current process, which has not been proposed for changes at this time, is to keep the public hearing open in order to allow interested persons to submit written comments to the Planning Board and to appear before the Planning Board, so long as the person's oral comments are consistent with their submitted written comments. This has been the process for well over a decade, and possibly since the establishment of zoning in Orange County, because it allows people to address the Planning Board but also ensures that comments made after the oral public hearing are documented and the BOCC is aware of additional comments. Because the UDO allows ;written comments to be made after the oral public hearing, the public hearing is held open in order to receive any submitted written comments. Formerly, the public hearing was not necessarily held open to a date -time certain but in the `00s, case law was made in North Carolina which prompted the County Attorney at the time to begin advising the County that public hearings must be adjourned to a specific date /time because failure to do so could result in legal challenges. If the current process regarding allowing written comments is kept intact, a solution to the potential confusion that might result with a planning - related item being listed on the BOCC agenda under "Public Hearings" but with no additional comment accepted 5 .. could be that a new Section is added to the BOCC agenda specifically for planning - related public hearing items. Perhaps "Acceptance of Planning Board Recommendation and Decision on Land Use and Planning - Related Matters," or similar phrasing, may be appropriate. Since the public hearing process may be changing and "real' planning - related public hearing items (e.g., oral comments accepted) might be listed on the BOCC agenda, it may be even more desirable to add an additional Section to the BOCC agenda to better differentiate oral public hearings from items that are on the agenda to close the public hearing and take action. Staff has written a document outlining various options for closure of the public hearing. Staff surveyed other jurisdictions in North Carolina to help determine various options for handling the public hearing process. The document is included at the end of this Form. Public Hearings for Legislative vs. Quasi - Judicial Items The UDO currently makes no distinction between public hearings for legislative items (e.g., rezonings /map amendments and text amendments) and quasi - judicial (e.g., special use permits) items. Because of the nature of quasi - judicial items, public hearings for special use permits can be lengthy. Although the proposed text amendments have been written without distinction between legislative and quasi - judicial matters, it would be possible to change the proposed language to limit quasi - judicial matters to few agendas per year while expanding the number of times per year planning - related legislative items could be considered. • 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 /MIL" ESTONES /DEADLINES a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed October 15, 2013 an :)uarterly Public Hearing February 24, 2014 – postponed to May 27, 2014 QPH due to time constraints at February QPH May 27, 2014 – postponed to September 8, 2014 QPH due to time constraints at May QPH — - -- - ----- - - - - -- 6 C. BUUU U dates /GheCK oints 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 May 8, 2014 — approval of legal ad for May quarterly public hearing June 17, 2014 — approval of legal ad for September quarterly public hearing November 6, 2014 - receive Planning 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 incorporated into the draft materials. The Summary Notes from the ORC meeting have been included at the end of this form. October 8, 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. Rlanning 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: L ❑ Small Area Plan W ❑ Other: F—� 7 - mtj We 3. FISCAL IMPACT Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid from 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 See Attachment 2. Primary Staff Contact: Perdita Holtz, AICP Planning Department 919- 245 -2578 pholtz @orangecountync.gov 8 Existing Review Process for non - County- initiated actions that require a BOCC public hearing The timeframe from Application Submittal to BOCC Decision is similar for the Existing Process and Proposed Process (a minimum of 4 -5 months). From a time perspective, the primary difference between the existing process and the proposed process is the greater number of application due dates per year. There are currently 4 due dates per year, which means that if someone is ready to apply and the application due date is still 2 months away, the application can be submitted but action towards a decision would be on hold for 2 months. If there were a more frequent application deadline and public hearing schedule, the process would be more efficient for some applicants. In recent years, Orange County's timeframe from application deadline dates to decision compares favorably to most local governments in North Carolina. One of the main differences is that most other local governments have a monthly public hearing cycle rather than the quarterly public hearing cycle Orange County adheres to. Additionally, the practice of having the BOCC approve the legal ad for the public hearings adds additional time (approximately 3 weeks, much more for the August QPH) to the front -end of the schedule since the application deadline date must be early enough to place the legal ad approval item on a BOCC agenda prior to newspaper ad deadline dates. 04 Pre - Application Conference Application Submittal DAC (Development Advisory Committee) Review /Comments Publish Legal Ad / Mail Notifications for Public Hearing Public Hearing (BOCC only) Planning Board Recommendation BOCC Decision Required for SUP, CUD, CZD, and Major Subdivisions Strongly recommended for all other projects Staff Representatives of various County departments and other agencies, as needed The BOCC would not approve the legal ad in this process. 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 OR public hearings dates for UDO /Comprehensive Plan- related items. The public hearings would no longer be joint BOCC /Planning Board public hearings. Public hearings would be held open to a date /time certain in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any suhmitted written rnmments_ While the Planning Board would not be required to attend the public hearing as an official board, individual Planning Board 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. Options for Closing Public Hearing (with salient points included in bullets) 1. Hold public hearing open until a date /time certain in order to receive written comments made to the Planning Board. This is the existing process which can be kept in place even if the Planning Board no longer attends public hearings as a formal board. This process ensures the BOCC is apprised of all comments made during the project's review. This process should be retained for quasi - judicial matters (special use permits) in order to meet requirements related to quasi-judicial issues. ■ Several jurisdictions in North Carolina have different processes for legislative vs. quasi- judicial projects, including some jurisdictions in which the Planning Board does not make a recommendation on quasi - judicial matters. However, some types of projects require both a rezoning (legislative) and a special use permit (quasi-judicial) so it can be problematic to have the Planning Board review only certain aspects of an overall action. (This was a point of confusion during the Buckhorn Village deliberations, which occurred prior to the UDO making it clear that the Planning Board makes a recommendation on Class A SUPs. The former zoning ordinance was unclear on whether the Planning Board acts on Class A SUPs). Requiring written comments after the oral public hearings helps to ensure that the Planning Board meeting does not become a defacto second public hearing where new oral comments may be made on controversial matters. If the Planning Board were to make a recommendation prior to the oral public hearing, the process could be different. ■ Staff received fairly strong direction at the September 9, 2013 work session that it was desirable for the Planning Board to make its recommendation after the oral public hearing. Confusion related to how items are listed on the BOCC agenda when the public hearing is being closed and no additional comments are accepted could be addressed by adding a new section to the BOCC agenda specifically for these types of items. ■ "Acceptance of Planning Board Recommendation and Decision on Land Use and Planning - Related Matters," or similar phrasing, may be appropriate. 2. Close public hearing the night of the hearing. ■ The Planning Board could not consider any additional comments (oral or written) after the public hearing is held. c� w co -p ■ This point is relevant only if the Planning Board makes its recommendation after the public hearing, rather than before the public hearing. Can be problematic if additional information is requested at the public hearing. ■ In instances where additional information is requested at the hearing, the public hearing would have to be held open to a date /time certain in order to receive the additional information. In some NC jurisdictions, the public hearing is closed and a decision is made at the same meeting. ■ This process can function only if the Planning Board makes its recommendation prior to the public hearing or if the Planning Board also attends the public hearing and makes its recommendation the same night. • In instances where more information is needed, the hearing would be continued to a date /time certain. • Past BOCCs have stated a desire to not make decisions the same night as the hearing. 3. Hold two separate public hearings — one for the Planning Board and one for the BOCC — and close both hearings the same night as the hearing This potential process was discussed at the September 9, 2013 work session but was not favored. ■ Would result in the need for advertising both public hearings, thereby doubling advertising costs ➢ Orange County already advertises in two publications (State statutes require advertising in only one) so the County's advertising costs are already higher than necessary to meet statutory requirements. o Staff notes that a policy decision was made many years ago when developing the fee schedule that the advertising costs for only one publication are included in the application fee applicants pay_.,, The annual Planning Department budget includes covering the costs of advertising in two publications. This hearing process has the potential to result in widely divergent points of view being expressed at the separate public hearings, depending on whether interested persons choose to attend both hearings or only one hearing. R 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 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. Approved 2/5/14 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 LIDO 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 29 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract. 30 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. M Approved 2/5/14 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 97 Approved 2/5/14 103 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** .. 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 red. 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: / /orangecountVnc.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 it row ctriLothre firth text. •. ARTICLE 2: PROCEDURES The following table provides a brief synopsis of the review and decision - making processes for development applications. DECISION TABLE 2.11: REVIEW AND •- DM=DECISION MAKER PH=PUBLIC HEARING DEVELOPMENT ZONING/DEVELOPMENT Ei • RELATED PLANNING ADVISORY REVIEw CONTROL BOARD OF PLANNING BOCC DIRECTOR COMMITTEE PROCEDURES OFFICER ADJUSTMENT BOARD 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 ,. DM and PH R [ DM and Special Use Permits R R R Class B Class s A 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 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 2 DM Conditional Use R R R R [1] R, DM, and PH Appeal NOTES [1] ,ent „p the . ,.,.Gabe, A public hearing is held by the BOCC after which the item is referred to 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. Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -1 [IiT 2.2.8 (A) Section 2.3: Com Subsequent Applications Article 2: Procedures isive Plan Amendments If the Board of County Commi enies a ion, or the application is withdrawn subsequent to notice u lic e on, no application for t�same� or similar amen ecting the same property or a portion o i , submone year. Said one year period begins on the date of denial or withdr 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 Land Use Plan (Map) Future Land Use Map Text I Future Land Use Map Publish Publish Legal Ad Legal Ad Post Sign Mail Notice Staff Recommendation to Planning Board Staff and PB Recommendation to BOCC BOCC Decision Orange County, North Carolina - Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -4 e Article 2: Procedures 101 Section 2.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments prescribed in Section 2.3.2(B); or (D) The Planning Director. (A) Orinripal Amenrlmento Inn- -Iude , evneerr fen 6 c'in lainial arr=la,: nr' (B) evicting node and does not in recce its land o a by more than ten aGras 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 and the PIaRRiRg BGaFd shall hear applications and receive public comment for proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments' 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 Hearin (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' and Use Plan (R;ap` Future Land Use MaP2, 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. Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -5 a 102 Article 2: Procedures Section 2.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) When multiple parcels are included within a proposed' ^ ^d "'6° D1 °^ (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 >_^^d' USED D1^^ (snap` 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) (B) than the February quaFterly PU1014G heaFiRg, it shall be GGheduled duFing one of the n aFteriv p bli^ heaFinno held in May August, and hlnv°mh (C) tai bk hear'n in February, May Ai g ion and Nevember. (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' and Use ol^^ (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. Orange County, North Carolina - Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -6 Article 2: Procedures 103 Section 2.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments (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 e;ay 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. �mmicc nncrc rank an e)deRGinri (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) than s � (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. Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -7 104 Article 2: Procedures Section 2.7: Special Use Permits SECTION 2.7: SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2.7.1 General (A) Any use or development designated by applicable zoning district regulations contained within Article 5 ' I as a sVeci 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. Special Use Application Permit Submittal App lication Review and mal Recommendation i Class B SUP Class A SUP scheduled for scheduled for review by review by Board of BOCC f Adjustment at P-lanning Board a public at a quarterly hearing public hearing Staff advertises meeting (newspaper ad, property posting, adjacent property letters) 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 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). Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -17 Article 2: Procedures Section 2.7: Special Use Permits 2.'7\6 Notice Requirements for Class B Special Use Permits \Natu Requirements for Class B Special Use Permits shall follow the procedures in Sec ' n 2.7.of Proceedings (A) e review of Special Use Permit applications s/nded nducted duri g a public hearing by e decision - making board. (B) The re 'ew of a Special Use Permit application i- judicia rocess, where the Board re onsible for rendering a decision acts a p el of judges. The Board hears factu evidence and sworn testimony pre a evidentiary hearing, and then makes fi ings of fact supported by compe ntial, and material evidence. (C) The chair or press ing officer of the hearing shall parties intending to present evidence or testimo during the hearing. (D) The chair or presiding icer may take whateve necessary to limit testimony to the presentation of new f tual evidence that 1, 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 lude: (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 (8) Ord ng.an end to disorderly conduct. (E) Where th oard finds compliance with the general standards, \inme es governing the spe ific use, and that the use complies with all required regd standards, the a lication must be approved unless the Board shall also fi specific MaXner, that: the use will not maintain or promote the public health, safety and g eral welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated acco ing to the plan as submitted. Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not pro to the public health, safety and general welfare shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the specific manner in which the propose use does not satisfy the requirements for approval 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 and PlaRRing Board 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. Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -19 105 IM Article 2: Procedures Section 2.7: Special Use Permits (3) The Board of County Commissioners may shall direct the Planning Board to provide a recommendation by a date certain$. If thL9 of GGwnty ('emmissigners rlees not se rl'res+ the Planning Board shall make its rengmmenda +inn within throe regularly sashed sled meetings (4) If the Planning Reard fails to make a regommenrtatign y.fith'n the time allotted �.AA 'n _,ubser.tien (3) above the annlioation shall he fonefa riled to the Board e 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).10 (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 provis' s detailed in this Section as well as those co fined within Section 2.12. (3) After comple ' n 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' standards shall be used in deciding on an applic 'on: (A) The lest meets all applicable design standards and other require is of this inance. The development can reasonably be completed within the vesting period reques 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. Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -20 i r" 1 Article 2: Procedures Section 2.8: Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments \aend endments to the Unified Development Ordinance text: A copy of the existing text provision(s) which the applicant proposes for amendment, and A written statement which describes in detail the changes the applican proposes to make. Ileged error in the Zoning Atlas and /or Unified Development Ordina e text that e corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explan ion of such error Z ing Atlas and /or Unified Development text and detailed rea ns how the sed mendment will correct the alleged error; hange r changing conditions, if any, in the area or in th ounty generally, which s the prop sed Zoning Atlas and /or Unified Developme Ordinance text dment reas ably necessary to promote the public he th, safety and general re; (E) The manner in which t proposed Zoning Atlas and/o,/Unified Development Ordinance text amendment will car out the intent and purpos of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof; and (F) A traffic impact study as requi d by Section 6. (G) For amendments to the Special od Haz Area Overlay District, pertaining to a Letter of Map Amendment: (1) An elevation certificate with ei er an MT-1, MT -2, or MT -EZ (forms available through FEMA), or (2) A "No-Impact" analysis f a Letter Map Revision. (H) All other circumstances, facto and reasons t t the applicant offers in support of the proposed Zoning Atlas and/ r Unified Developm t Ordinance text amendment. 2.8.4 Applications for Amendment/Joint Planning Area \ Applications for amendment to the Orange County Unified Dev opment Ordinance and Zoning Atlas for the purpose of in rporating the provisions of the Chapel ill 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 S( 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 ocedures contain herein and those contained in the Joint Planning Agreement, the provision 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 PlaR ,iRg Beard shall hear applications and receive public comment for Zoning Atlas amendments and /or text amendments to this Ordinance it a QuaFterl„ Publin Hearing 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. Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -24 107 1: Article 2: Procedures Section 2.8: Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments 2.8Y, Notice of Public Hearings (A Notice of the public hearing to review the application and receive public c ment shall be blished at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the c nty, 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 ublication 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 hearing 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 property lies within 500 feet of the affected property. (E) If endments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the County, notices II be sent by rst 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. If the -Reard- of Geunty G6MMiGGiGRers does Rot F, sr,heduled PIaR ,iRg Reed meetings. 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." (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) s. 12 (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 Countv 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). 11 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 /tune certain in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation. (E) will be renumbered (D). 13 See footnote 97 for additional information about subsection (E). Orange County, North Carolina - Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -25 Jt '► Article 2: Procedures 109 Section 2.9: Conditional Districts (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. Text Revisions Pertaining to Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Provisions ( 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 inance and, within 90 days of receipt of the recommended re ' ions, submit draft ame ments to the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Co ission for its consider 'on and comments. (B) Within 150 da after receipt of the North. Carolina S imentation Control Commission's comments, Oran County shall formally conside 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 Ordin ce f soil erosion and sedimentation control provisions shall comply with the requiremen effect for any other text amendment. 2.8.11 Text Revisions Pertaining to St o water Provi 'ons (A) The Erosion Control ficer shall review all of th State Environmental Management Commission's re ions to the State's Model Storm ter Ordinance and, within 90 days of receipt oft recommended revisions, submit draf=end ments to the State Environm al Management Commission for its cons and comments. (B) With' 150 days after receipt of the State Environmental Manage 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. C) Text amendments to this Ordinance for stormwater provisions shall comply with 1 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 Conditiona (A) Generally (1) Any use permitte nder the CUD proc shall conform to all applicable development regulatio or the esponding general use zoning district as well as any specific developme dards outlined within this Ordinance. (2) The Board of Cou ommissioners, ' eviewing a CUD application, may impose suc asonable conditions upon ap val of a CUD request as will affor tection 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. Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -26 110 Article 2: Procedures Section 2.12: Board of Adjustment 2.11.6 Notice Requirements Notice requirements shall follow Section 2.12.6(A). Other subsections of Section 2 2 6 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 th/Planing Director at its next regularly scheduled meeting or at a special meeting called fpose. 2.12 .2 Quasi -Ju ial Proceedings (A) (B) (C) (D) The \issues of Adjustment acts in a quasi - judicial capacity. Howeve , it is not intended that ceedings be conducted as formally as those before co rts. The rocedure and evidence set forth in this Ordinan shall be followed to prot in rests of all parties and the public. The ing o er shall administer oaths to all witness sand shall make rulings neceto pres ve fairness, order, or proper decor in any matter before the Board of Aent. Any er of the Boa of Adjustment or any in rested party may object to, and the presfficer may excl de, any evidence, to imony, or statement that is deemed incont, irrelevant, im terial, or unduly epetitious and therefore fails to reasonably addre issues before the oard of Adi tment. 2.12.3 Evidence and T (A) I nterested 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 (2) If person fails or refuses to obey a subpoena issued p uant to this ubsection, the Board of Adiustment may apply to the Gen al Court of Justice for an order requiring that its order be obeyed, and the Court. ill have jurisdiction to issue those orders after notice to all proper parties. No testimony of any witness before the Board of Adjustment, purs ant to a subpoena issued in exercise of the power conferred by this subsecti n, may be used against the witness in any civil or criminal action, other than a pr ecution for false swearing committed on the examination. (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. Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -39 1" 1 1 �11�1 Article 5: Uses 1 1 1 Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities The facility shall be removed within 12 months from the date ap,plicant ceases use of the facility. / (d) Once the ' astructure is removed the propert e owner shall obtain the necessary ion Control permits to - stabilize the property. The time frame for comp shall be rmined by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer. (e) The owner shall pro ' e financial sec in form and amount acceptable to the Count ecure the expense of dis ling and removing said (f) on removal of the facility, the Department shall cause a i1 e to be recorded within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds office indi—alt<c that the Class A Special Use Permit has been revoked. 5.10.1 1 The regulations contained herein ar to provid safe and efficient integration of facilities necessary for the provision of a ire ervices through the community with the o a fishing reliable wirelescovernmental agencies esponders in a manner that provides foud genera 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 a.,Ruall , at the CebfuaFy n„arteF! , D„hliG Heaping. Any appliGaRt requesting mc)dif'GatieR Gf the Plan shall make appliGatiep to the at any of the meetings Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -80 112 Article 5: Uses Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities 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.tQ.3 Annual Telecommunications Projection Meeting (ATPM . NA) 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 tcon of the meeting is to allow the County and interested parties to develop plan for facility deployment within the County that provides reasonable cover ge based on the n eds of the County and its residents, while minimizing the otal number of nee ed telecommunication support facilities, including m' 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. (13) Applicability (1) By December 315' 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 t to ate facilities, as well as identify those areas of the County that are unders rved b existing facilities. (2) As of the effective date f this Ordinan amendment any pending applications that have not receiv 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, appli tion standards and processi , excluding the ATPM requirement. (C) Meeting Specific (1) The m eting shall occur by the end of January of each c lendar year. (2) At ndees shall include all carriers and tower companies wh have either filed /plications the previous year or anyone who has expressed %prevent in filing an application to construct a telecommunication support facilit County. (3 The County shall notify each party of the date, time, and placeting no later than 30 days prior to the meeting. (4) Those individuals /firms intent on submitting development appe expected to attend the meeting. While a lack of attendance went t submittal of an application, it will prevent the appli cant's ability ate 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. Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -81 A 11 .,