HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-18-2014 - 5b1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 18, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 5 -b
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Requiring Neighborhood
Information Meetings for Special Use Permit Applications (No Additional
Comments Accepted)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, (919) 245 -2597
Development Ordinance Outline Form Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245 -2592
(UDO & Zoning 2014 -12)
2. Approved September 8, 2014 Quarterly
Public Hearing Legal Ad
3. Excerpt of Approved September 8, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes
4. Excerpt of Approved October 8, 2014
Planning Board Minutes
5. Planning Board Statement of Consistency
6. Resolution Concerning Statement of
Consistency
7. Ordinance Amending UDO
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision a Planning Director initiated text amendment to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) requiring a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) for all Special Use
Permit (SUP) applications.
As a reminder, the reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board
recommendation and any additional written evidence submitted since the September 8, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing. This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public.
While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from
the public shall not be solicited.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing.
The amendment would require a NIM be held 45 days prior to a public hearing where a SUP
was scheduled for review. The applicant would be required to mail notices 14 days, and post a
sign on the property 10 days, prior to the NIM meeting.
Attachment 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning- 2014 -12
Require a Neighborhood Information Meeting for all Special Use Permit Applications.
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Future Land Use 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
3
�ection(s): 1. Section 2.7 Special Use Permits,
2. Section 2.9.1 (D) Neighborhood Information Meeting —
Conditional Use Districts, and
3. Section 5.10 Standards for Telecommunication Uses.
❑ Other:
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose /Mission
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has
initiated text amendment(s) to require a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) be
held for all Special Use Permit (SUP) applications prior to the public hearing. The
proposal would also modify the timeline for the holding of a NIM for Conditional Use
1
0
applications
Originally staff had anticipated amending existing NIM requirements for Conditional
Zoning District (CZD) applications, as detailed within Section 2.9.2 (D) of the UDO.
Staff determined, however, there was no need to revise existing timelines as CZD
applications are not reviewed through the quasi-judicial hearing process (i.e.
requiring sworn testimony and competent material evidence) and there was no need
to provide additional time to adjacent property owners to understand the review
process or prepare for the public hearing.
At the May 27, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing several BOCC members expressed
concern over the lack notification /information on SUP applications in advance of a
scheduled public hearing.
The review of SUP applications are carried out in a quasi-judicial process requiring
the presentation of sworn, expert, testimony and competent material /substantial
evidence by both those in favor and in opposition to a given application. Decisions to
approve or deny an application are based on this evidence. Hearsay or
unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
Currently, the SUP review process requires adjacent property owners receive written
notice of a public hearing, via certified mail, a minimum of 15 days prior to a
scheduled public hearing. Given the complexity of the review process the concern is
this is insufficient time to allow for adjacent property owners to gather information, or
secure the necessary experts, to effectively participate in the review process.
At the public hearing staff recommended amending the existing permit review
process for future SUP applications to require the holding of the aforementioned
meeting in an effort to inform local property owners of the project and provide
educational information on the nature of the proceedings, including detail on what
constitutes `competent material evidence and testimony', and the required findings
that have to be made to issue a permit.
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, 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 amendments are necessary to ensure Orange County residents and property
owners are provided advance notice of submitted SUP applications, have an
opportunity to review the project before a scheduled public hearing, obtain an
understanding of the required review and approval processes, and have sufficient
time to gather information and /or secure experts to aid them in the review of the
project.
Having a NIM 45 days prior to the public hearing, as discussed and recommended at
the September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing, the application submittal deadline
and review process will be extended by approximately 50 to 60 days to
accommodate the meeting and review schedule.
2
3. 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.
4. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME /MILESTONES /DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
June 17, 2014
b. Quarterly Public Hearin
September 8. 2014
5
c. BOCC Updates /Checkpoints
June 17, 2014 — BOCC members approved the legal advertisement for the
September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing.
STAFF COMMENT: the BOCC authorized staff to move forward with the
proposed amendments consistent with the timelines identified herein.
July 2, 2014 — Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
STAFF COMMENT: the ORC reviewed this item at its July 2, 2014
meeting where the following comments /questions were made:
• Will this increase the cost of a Special Use Permit application?
STAFF COMMENT. Yes. The applicant will have to pay for the
mailing notifying residents of the NIM. Approval of this amendment
will require an amendment to the Orange County Fee Schedule to
capture this fee.
• How will this amendment impact applications for telecommunication
towers?
STAFF COMMENT: Currently property owners within 1,000 feet of
a parcel of property where a telecommunication tower is proposed
are notified of a balloon test. This test, which occurs anywhere from
6 weeks (Class B application — 75 to 199 ft. tall tower) to 11 weeks
(Class A application — 200 ft. and over) prior to a public hearing.
The purpose of this test is to show interested parties how the tower
will `look' on the property by flying a dirigible at the maximum
proposed height of the tower. Staff, who already attends this test,
intends to utilize this test as serving as the NIM and will be available
to provide information on the process.
Staff will require the applicant to amend the letter notifying
3
R
applicable parties of the test, which they are already required to
send and pay for, that the meeting will also serve the function of
reviewing the application review process.
• Who runs the meeting?
STAFF COMMENT: Staff calls the meeting to order to review the
application review process and then turns it over to the applicant to
discuss the project.
September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing. This item was reviewed at the
hearing where the following questions /comments were made:
• BOCC and Planning Board members indicated they believed
holding a NIM 30 days prior to the public hearing, where a special
use permit was set for review, would not provide sufficient notice to
adjacent property owners of the hearing or review process.
There was consensus that holding the NIM 45 days in advance of
the public hearing would be more appropriate.
STAFF COMMENT. The change has been incorporated. This will
increase the time currently associated with the submittal and review
of special use permit application by approximately 50 to 60 days.
• A BOCC member suggested the NIM be held in the evening rather
than during the day.
STAFF COMMENT. The UDO does not specify the time (i.e. day or
evening) a NIM is held. Departmental policy has been to hold the
meeting during normal business hours.
Staff reminded the Board that complaints have been received over
the holding of similar meetings during normal business hours, as
people who want to attend them work, as well as at night, as people
do not drive at night or the meeting conflicts with family activities or
with an individuals work schedule.
No matter when the hearing is held there is the potential for
criticism.
• A BOCC member suggested that staff provide periodic updates on
the Planning Department website on applications being submitted
and where such applications are in the review process.
STAFF COMMENT: Information shall be provided as suggested.
• A BOCC member asked staff to clarify current NIM requirements.
STAFF COMMENT. A meeting is held:
1. 14 days prior to the Planning Board review of a Major
Subdivision Concept Plan application,
2. 14 days Prior to the submittal of any Zoning
Compliance Permit application proposing a
F.
governmental use,
3. 14 days prior to a public hearing where a Conditional
Use District or Conditional Zoning District is scheduled
for review.
• A BOCC member suggested a NIM for a Conditional Zoning District
application be held consistent with other similar processes being
discussed.
STAFF COMMENT: Conditional Zoning District applications are a
reviewed as a legislative item. There is no expert testimony or
evidence required as part of its review. There is no need for an
applicant or a concerned property owner to hire `experts' to testify
about the projects compliance or non - compliance with County
regulations.
The current proposal is intended to address a concern that local
property owners be provided an opportunity to learn about the
special use permit process (i.e. what constitutes competent,
material, evidence) and have sufficient time to prepare.
Given the review and action on Conditional Zoning District
applications staff does not believe there is a need to change current
regulations.
October 8, 2014 — Planning Board Meeting. This item was reviewed at the
October regular meeting where the following questions /comments were made:
• A Planning Board member suggested there be different notification
standards for a NIM. For projects in rural areas an applicant would
be required to notify all property owners within 1,000 feet, via
certified mail, of the meeting while projects in urban areas would be
required to send notices to those properties within 500 feet.
STAFF COMMENT: The mailing of a meeting notice is not the only
method of advertising a NIM. Signs are also posted on the subject
parcel notifying all interested parties of the date, time, and location
of the meeting where the application will be reviewed. Notification
of meetings is also typically posted on the County website.
Staff believes different notification requirements lead to confusion,
and complaints, from both property owners and applicants. In this
case we are concerned complaints will focus on:
1. The methodology for determining what areas of the County
are urban and rural.
2. Property owners are not afforded the same
opportunities /rights to participate in the process due to their
proximity to a project (i.e. rural residents within 1,000 feet of
a project are notified of a meeting but urban residents 1,000
feet from a project are not).
Staff continues to recommend the 500 foot notification requirement.
5
7
• A Planning Board member wanted to establish a minimum and
maximum timeframe for the notification of a NIM and the scheduling
of a public hearing. The concern was the NIM could be held and
then an applicant delay the scheduling of a hearing thereby limiting
participation of adjacent property owners in the review process due
to the delay.
STAFF COMMENT: As written a NIM is held 45 days prior to the
public hearing where an item is scheduled to be heard.
There is not a major delay with respect to the holding of the
neighborhood meeting and the review of an application at the public
hearing.
Staff would argue that if an applicant requests a delay in the review
of a SUP application (i.e. moving the project from the February to
November quarterly public hearings) a second NIM would be
required in advance of the new hearing date.
After review the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the text
amendment as presented. A copy of the approved minutes can be found
in Attachment 4. A signed statement of consistency indicating the proposed
amendment is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan is contained
within Attachment 5.
November 18, 2014 - Receive Planning Board recommendation.
d. Other
N/A
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
a. Planning Board Review:
July 2, 2014 — Ordinance Review Committee (ORC).
October 8, 2014 — Recommendation
b. Advisory Boards:
N/A
c. Local Government Review:
Review of the proposal by the Town(s)
of Chapel Hill and Carrboro consistent
with the Joint Planning Agreement
(JPA) as the amendment will impact
projects in the Rural Buffer. Items
were sent on July 31, 2014.
At this time we have received no
written comments. Town of Carrboro
staff has verballv indicated thev have
M
no concerns over the proposal.
d. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement was published in accordance with the provisions of the UDO.
e. Outreach:
❑ General Public:
❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup:
® Other: Staff asked County's current telecommunication consultant to review
and comment on the amendments as they relate to our telecom
aroaram. Our consultant had no concerns.
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Modification of existing language will not require the outlay of additional funds by the
County. Processing of the amendment shall be handled by staff utilizing existing
budgeted funds.
The amendment will require that applicants absorb additional expenditures for
advertisement of the NIM (i.e. certified letters) for all SUP projects as well as their
attendance. The Orange County Fee Schedule will need to be amended to
incorporate these costs.
There will also be an increase in staff workload with respect to preparing, sending out
notices, and staffing the NIM potentially impacting Departmental budgetary outlays.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
The amendments are in response to concerns related to the processing of SUP
applications, specifically a lack of advance notification to local property owners /residents
of the project. These amendments are designed to promote additional notification of a
SUP project in advance of a scheduled public hearing and provide an opportunity for
local residents to comment on a project as well as receive an explanation on the SUP
review process.
As previously indicated the application submittal deadline will have to be increased to
accommodate a NIM being held 45 days prior to a public hearing.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Please refer to Attachment 7 for the proposed language
Primary Staff Contact.
Michael D. Harvey
Current Planning Supervisor
(919) 245 -2597
mharvey @orangecountync.gov
VA
0
10
Attachment 2
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A joint public hearing will be held at the Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, 300 West Tryon
Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, September 8, 2014 at 7:00 PM for the
purpose of giving all interested residents an opportunity to speak for or against the
following items:
2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments: The purpose of these
amendments is to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area
in Cheeks Township. These proposed actions are measures to implement some of
the recommendations contained in the adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area
Plan. These proposed amendments were heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly
public hearing where the hearing was continued until September 8, 2014 to allow
time for County staff to meet with interested persons to address any remaining
concerns. The February hearing materials are available on -line
at: htt p:// orangecountvnc .gov /occierks /140224.pdf. To date, no changes to the
proposed amendments have been made from the amendments presented at the
February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing.
A map depicting the proposed overlay districts and other written information is
available on the Planning Department's website
at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /includes /Proposed fland oningOverlay istri
ct.as
The general geographic extent of the proposed "Efland Village Overlay District" is
the railroad tracks that run through Efland to slightly north of U.S. Highway 70 with
west -east boundaries of the Harding Road area and Gym Road.
The general geographic extent of the proposed "Efland Interstate Overlay District" is
the railroad tracks that run through Efland to Interstate 40/85 with west -east
boundaries of a line between Gaines Chapel Road and Center Street and the U.S.
70 Connector.
Single- family residential uses are not subject to the proposed overlay districts.
The purpose of the zoning overlay districts is to encourage high quality growth in the
geographic area covered by the overlay districts while protecting existing
development and community character. Alternative development regulations are
necessary to reflect the reality of smaller sized lots served by water and sewer
systems while ensuring that good planning practices related to site design,
transportation, and architecture /design are achieved.
11
Purpose: To continue review and public comment on the proposed text and zoning
atlas amendments.
2. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment: In accordance with
the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments of the Unified
Development Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners has initiated an
amendment to the Future Land Use Map located within Chapter 5: Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Through a previous joint planning process with Orange County, the Town of
Hillsborough identified an Urban Service Area outside of which municipal services, such
as public water or sewer, will not be provided unless for reasons of public health, safety,
and general welfare. To establish consistency with the Town's Urban Service Area, the
Town is adjusting its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction or "ETJ" boundary to exclude any
properties located outside of its Urban Service Area. ETJ is an area outside of the
Town's corporate limits over which the Town exercises its zoning and planning authority.
The purpose of this County Future Land Use Map amendment is to assign County land
use classifications to properties that are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough
ETJ, which is to become effective October 1, 2014.
The proposed Future Land Use Map amendments comprise approximately 500 -acres
located generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and 1- 85/1 -40 in Cheeks and
Hillsborough Townships. Properties are to be classified to County Land Use
Classifications, which in these cases include: Agricultural Residential and Public Interest
District (portions to include Watershed Protection Overlay Districts). The Parcel
Identification Numbers (PIN) of the twenty -two parcels included in this amendment are:
9864212218
9864294255
9864165305
9854989358
9864111534
9864012864
9864175152
9864135926
9864015589
9864074274
9864210925
9864111926
9864122219
9864028637
9864312586
9864155705
9864124872
9864138329
9864319480
9864224688
9864069297
9854980353
A map depicting the proposed land use classifications is available on the Planning
Department's website
at: http: / /www.co.orange.nc.us/ planning/ 2030ComprehensivePlanutureLandUse apan
dZoningAtlasAmendments.asp
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed Future
Land Use Map amendment.
3. Zoning Atlas Amendment: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning
Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development
Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners has initiated an amendment to the
Zoning Atlas. This amendment is companion to the Future Land Use Map Amendment
in #3 above and is to assign County zoning districts to properties that are to be removed
from the Town of Hillsborough ETJ, which is to become effective October 1, 2014.
12
Through a previous joint planning process with Orange County, the Town of
Hillsborough identified an Urban Service Area outside of which municipal services, such
as public water or sewer, will not be provided unless for reasons of public health, safety,
and general welfare. To establish consistency with the Town's Urban Service Area, the
Town is adjusting its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction or "ETJ" boundary to exclude any
properties located outside of its Urban Service Area. ETJ is an area outside of the
Town's corporate limits over which the Town exercises its zoning and planning authority.
The proposed Zoning Atlas amendment comprises approximately 500 -acres located
generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and 1- 85/1 -40 in Cheeks and
Hillsborough Townships. Properties are to be zoned to County zoning districts, which in
these cases include: Agricultural Residential (AR) and Public Interest District (PID)
(portions to include Watershed Protection Overlay Districts and Special Flood Hazard
Area). The Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) of the twenty -two parcels included in this
amendment are:
9864212218
9864294255
9864165305
9854989358
9864111534
9864012864
9864175152
9864135926
9864015589
9864074274
9864210925
9864111926
9864122219
9864028637
9864312586
9864155705
9864124872
9864138329
9864319480
9864224688
9864069297
9854980353
A map depicting the proposed zoning districts is available on the Planning Department's
website
at: http: / /www.co. orange. nc. us / planning/ 2030ComprehensivePlanutureLandUse apan
dZoninpAtlasAmendments.asp
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the Zoning Atlas
amendment.
4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: In accordance with
the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has
initiated amendments to the text of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
The purpose of the amendments is to require that a neighborhood information
meeting be held at least 30 days prior to the public hearing regarding applications
for a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit. The following Sections of the UDO are
proposed for amendment: 2.7, 2.9.1, 2.9.2, and 5.10.
The purpose of the neighborhood information meeting is to inform surrounding
property owners of the special use permit application. The proposed timeframe prior
to the public hearing will allow interested persons more time to develop expert
witnesses, objective testimony, and substantial evidence, all of which are
requirements of the quasi - judicial nature of special use permits. The existing
statutory requirement for notice of a public hearing is at least 10 calendar days but
not more than 25 days. However, Orange County's UDO requires a minimum of 15
13
days notice for special use permit applications. Neither the statutory requirement
nor the local ordinance is proposed for amendment and two notices will be provided
for special use permit applications (one for the neighborhood information meetings
and one for the public hearing).
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed
amendments.
5. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: In accordance with
the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has
initiated amendments to the text of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
The purpose of the amendments is to change the existing public hearing process
for Comprehensive Plan -, UDO -, and Zoning Atlas- related items /amendments.
The following Sections are proposed for amendments: 2.1, 2.3, 2.7, 2.8, 5.10.2.
The proposed amendments would replace the existing joint Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) /Planning Board quarterly public hearings regarding land
use and planning matters and include the scope, conduct, and administration of
public hearings.
This item was on the February 24, 2014 and May 27, 2014 quarterly public hearing
agendas but was postponed due to time constraints.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed
amendments.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning
Department located on the second floor of the County Office Building at 131 West
Margaret Lane, Suite 201, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call (919) 245 -2575 or 245 -2585
and you will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions or you may e-
mail questions to plan ningdept Qorangecountync.gov.
PUBLISH: The Herald Sun News of Orange
August 27, 2014 August 27, 2014
September 3, 2014 September 3, 2014
Attachment 3 — Excerpt of Approved 14
September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public
Hearing Minutes
APPROVED 10/7/2014
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
September 8, 2014
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on September 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building,
in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Deputy Clerk to the
Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board
members, Lisa Stuckey, Herman Staats, James Lea, Paul Guthrie, Tony Blake, Laura
Nicholson, and Lydia Wegman
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, H.T.
"Buddy" Hartley, Bryant Warren
4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government -
initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to require that a neighborhood information
meeting be held at least 30 days prior to the public hearing regarding applications for a
Class A or Class B Special Use Permit.
Michael Harvey said the next item on the agenda starts on page 61. He referred to the
paper copies of two emails, as well as the three attachments in the abstract.
He reviewed the background information and said at the May 27 Public Hearing,
concerns were expressed by the Board that neighborhood meetings were not required for
special use permits. He said staff noted that neighborhood meetings are currently required for
all major subdivisions, conditional use and rezoning applications, as well as those individual
land uses categorized as government uses. He said a neighborhood meeting is an opportunity
for surrounding property owners to receive a presentation from the applicant providing a
synopsis of the proposed project, as well to ask questions.
Michael Harvey said staff keeps a record of this meeting, which is provided to the
applicant, as well the Planning Board and the County Commissioners.
He said this amendment proposes this same process be required for all special use
permits, both Class A and Class B. He said staff is proposing this meeting should occur 30
days prior to a public hearing, and notifications would go our 15 days prior to that.
Michael Harvey said staff has been coordinating this with the County Attorney's Office,
and there have been some proposed language /word choice changes that will be made. He said
staff will also incorporate comments from this evening
Commissioner Pelissier asked how staff picked the timeframe of 30 days.
15
Michael Harvey said 30 days was chosen because that is what is required for major
subdivisions and government uses. He said conditional zoning requests only require 2 weeks,
as these are a legislative decision and they are less complex.
Commissioner Price asked if there are any guidelines about the location and the hours
for these meetings.
Michael Harvey said these meetings are typically held during the day, because that is
when staff and the applicant can attend. He said he is aware of the concern that these may
need to be held at an appropriate hour to guarantee mass attendance, but these will have to be
coordinated with when the applicant can be available.
Commissioner Price said that would be her concern. She suggested a set of guidelines
within the department.
Commissioner Rich said she has some concerns about the 30 day notice. She wonders
if there is another way to let the neighbors know what is going on.
Michael Harvey referred to page 80 and the typical timeline for the submittal of a special
use permit applications. He said applications for a Class A special use permit are submitted 60
days prior to a public hearing. He said the timeline that has to be followed means that a
neighborhood meeting letter is being sent out within two weeks of acceptance of the application.
He said the application submittal deadline can certainly be altered if the Board wants to do so.
He said one reason he would urge the Board not to require notification of neighbors when an
application is submitted is that a sufficiency test has to be done to determine if the application is
even complete, and if it is not complete it is rejected by staff and review does not occur.
Commissioner Rich said the concern she had after the experience with the solar farm is
that the solar company had a long time with the planning board, and the neighbors had a very
short amount of time to understand what was happening. She said something was out of
balance there.
Michael Harvey said the application was submitted in December of 2013, but the
applicant requested the review of the application be continued from the February until the May
2014 quarterly public hearing. He said the mechanism was currently not available for staff to
notify property owners that an application had been submitted beyond the existing 2 week public
hearing notice. He said if one special use applicant is treated differently than others, this
creates a legal issue and the county could be challenged for being arbitrary. He said the
applicant chose to delay the hearing after not responding to staff emails outlining deficiencies.
Commissioner McKee referred to the outline on page 80 and said the notification is sent
out 15 days prior to the 30 days before the neighborhood meeting.
Michael Harvey said that is correct
Commissioner Dorosin said it seems there are two different things that can be done to
improve this process. He said it seems that staff feels that there is no need to hold a meeting
until the application is approved, but the neighbors have an interest in what is going on. He
does not see these things as irreconcilable.
16
He referred to the monthly report received by the Board listing applications in the
planning queue. He suggested that this information, including the past 3 months of applications,
could be made available on the website for the public to view. He said this addresses the
criticism by giving more transparency and balancing the rights of the developers and the
community. He asked if this is feasible.
Michael Harvey said this would not be a difficult request to accommodate.
Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Dorosin's idea. She said this is
something being talked about in the strategic communication plan. She said this is an example
of using a tool to help people get information. She said the there may be a lot of questions, but
the opportunity for the community to know what is going on is very valuable.
Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on the timeframe required for the meetings
for major subdivisions.
Michael Harvey said major subdivisions require a meeting before the Planning Board
reviews a concept plan application. He said the neighborhood meeting covers the concept plan
review.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the timing for conditional use and conditional zoning
and whether 30 days would factor into that.
Michael Harvey said this would factor into the conditional use, but the conditional zoning
is currently two weeks, and it will stay that way in the current ordinance.
Commissioner Gordon asked what would need to be done to change the conditional
zoning to the longer time period.
Michael Harvey said staff has recommended that there is no need to change this, given
the fact that this is a legislative item and does not require expert testimony.
Commissioner Gordon said she thinks that this two week time period for conditional
zoning is a mistake, because these can be more problematic than conditional use. She said
this is true even though conditional re- zoning does not have a special use permit process.
Michael Harvey said this is one of the reasons that the timeline was not expanded and
that he did not agree that conditional zoning was more problematic given the lack of requiring
expert testimony as with all quasi judicial cases.
Commissioner Gordon said the conditional re- zoning requires some negotiating between
the applicant and the County, and a lot of it is up to the Commissioners to approve. She said
some of the standards for uses permitted under the conditional zoning process are similar to
those for uses permitted under the Class B special use permit process. She said it is her
opinion that the range of negotiation and need for public knowledge is the same.
Michael Harvey said conditional use involves a special use permit and will have to meet
the 30 day meeting requirement.
17
Commissioner Gordon said it is still her opinion that you need every bit as much time on
a conditional re- zoning as you do on a conditional use. She said a special use permit does put
the additional burden of expert testimony.
Commissioner Gordon said she likes Commissioner Dorosin's idea of having three
months of submitted applications available, with clarification that these have not gone through
the process yet. She said one of the attached emails suggested the planning staff play a more
prominent role in the meetings, and staff needs to think about this and about what their role
should be.
She said she is extremely pleased to see that this idea about the neighborhood
information meetings and timing has been raised. She said it is important to allow transparency
and time to react.
Commissioner Pelissier said she appreciates Commissioner Dorosin's suggestion. She
thinks there is a front end of the process, but there also needs to be consideration of having
better communication when there are a lot of concerns. She said it is hard to predict public
reaction.
Michael Harvey said he feels that if staff can implement Commissioner Dorosin's
suggestion of using the webpage and if staff takes greater steps to explain the process and
educate residents, this will help things.
Chair Jacobs referred to Commissioner Price's question about the scheduling of
meetings at night. He said this may not work for everyone, but it is expected by most people,
and the developer should have a profit motive to be there.
Michael Harvey said staff gets requests and complaints both ways with respect to
holding meetings during the day and the evening, and there is no one way to make everybody
happy
Chair Jacobs said it seems to be the default to hold public meetings at night
Chair Jacobs said it would be easy to take the report that was received in their planning
packets and place it on the web as Commissioner Dorosin suggested.
Michael Harvey said this will be accommodated fairly easily.
Chair Jacobs said one of the reasons for talking about having public information
meetings for some of the applications was because government and quasi - governmental
facilities had no notice requirements.
Commissioner Price said she supports what Commissioner Dorosin said about the
meeting.
Commissioner Gordon said she wants to underscore Commissioner Pelissier's point
about situations where there are a lot of concerns, and more time is needed. She said the goal
is to identify categories where a meeting is needed and then to allow sufficient time. She thinks
conditional rezoning should be included in this.
IN
She said something else that could be done when there is an issue that generates a lot
of concern is to adjourn the public hearing to a date certain. She said this was done for the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). She asked for an identification of situations where the
public hearing could not be extended.
Michael Harvey said he cannot think of a situation where an extension would not be
allowed.
James Bryan said special use permits require a quasi - judicial decision and a fair trial
standard. He said this is ill defined, but there are principles of equity and fairness, so you
cannot repeatedly continue an application as a means of delay. He said you need to articulate
a reason for delaying.
Commissioner McKee said he agrees with most of what is being said. He wants to
make sure there is transparency for the public, and no one is blindsided. He said this
discussion is about the time before a public hearing, and he notes that there is no guarantee
that an item will pass once it gets to a public hearing. He said there has already been a lot of
talk over the years about the time that it takes to get a project to completion, and he agrees with
the staff recommendation of 30 days. He thinks a longer time frame would extend the time
frame too much.
Commissioner Rich asked if the Board is going to re -visit the previous question about
solar companies and how other governments have handled these.
Michael Harvey said this update will be presented at the October 7th meeting.
Pete Hallenbeck said he has lots of notes for the Planning Board, and he is sees the
following four main issues: 1) Determining the number of days prior to the first public hearing, as
well as the idea of informing the public of new applications as soon as these become public, 2)
the need for more details on the information that an applicant must provide at the public
information meeting, 3) determining who owns the information and details — the planning
department or the applicant, and 4) determining the most convenient location and hours of
meetings.
Pete Hallenbeck invited comments from the Planning Board members.
Tony Blake said the issue that seems to be missing for him is the 500 feet requirement.
He said this is probably adequate notice in town or in subdivision areas, but in the County you
may not have a neighbor within 500 feet. He noted that the issue with the placement of the fire
station involved complaints from people half a mile away. He said it was also not clear to him
who the applicant was in the case of the fire station.
Lydia Wegman said she is speaking as a member of the Planning Board and as a
member of the public. She said she has concern about 30 days, and this time would have been
insufficient for her neighborhood in the case of the solar project. She said only 17 days was
allowed to get information to a neighborhood of 90 homes. She said 30 days is an
improvement, but this is a quasi - judicial process, and it involves attorneys and appraisers. She
has suggested 90 days, but even 45 would be better, because it takes a lot of effort, time, and
money to organize a neighborhood if there is a project of concern.
Chair Jacobs said there is a lot to consider.
19
Michael Harvey asked if there is any consensus from the Board regarding what timeline
they would like the staff and Planning Board to review.
Chair Jacobs said he thinks the two options are 30 days or 45 days.
Commissioner Price expressed her support of Tony Blake's comments regarding the
extension of the 500 foot limit. She feels it should be greater in the rural area.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to: Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the November 18, 2014 BOCC
regular meeting. Adjourn the public hearing until November 18, 2014 in order to receive and
accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
20
Attachment 4 — Excerpt of Approved 11/5/14
Approved October 8, 2014
Planning Board Minutes
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 8, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill
Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar
Grove Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative;
Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley,
Little River Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough
Township Representative;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman -At -Large Chapel Hill Township;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Tom Altieri,
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator, Tina Love, Administrative
Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager; James Bryan, Staff Attorney; Andrew Vanard
HANDOUTS GIVEN: (email from Lydia Wegman concerning Item 10 which is attached at the end of the minutes)
AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation to
the BOCC on government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to require that a
neighborhood information meeting be held at least 45 days prior to the public hearing
regarding applications for a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit. This item was heard at
the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Michael Harvey reviewed abstract
Tony Blake: I have a couple of questions, it seems to me 45 days is obsessive but what we really need is a window
of time because you don't want somebody introducing a plan and two years and then 45 days before they execute
have a neighborhood information meeting.
Michael Harvey: That doesn't typically happen.
Tony Blake: It seems me that there should be a minimum and a maximum. The second is in the rural areas, 500
feet is not sufficient. What you will get are people who are really against whatever it is as opposed to a broader
audience of people who may benefit from it in a larger sense. I am pointing specifically to the fire station substation
we built. If we had strictly stayed with the 500 feet we would have gotten the people who didn't want to live within
500 feet of a fire station instead of the larger population who would benefit from a reduction in insurance rates. You
are going to miss in this neighborhood information meeting, the point of view of the greater good.
Michael Harvey: You're allowed to your opinion and I don't want to argue with you on it. It is your opinion, I see pro
and con to it. The only comment I will make is that the notice that we send out is not the only means of advertising
we also post the property. I think when you take a look for example the Binks solar facility, which we did notify
21
Approved 11/5/14
people within 500 feet of the property, if you extend that to 1000 feet you would quite frankly only have captured 20
or 30 additional properties owners. Some of which were there because of the advertising signs we had put out at the
property.
Tony Blake: I invite people to do the research and look and see roughly how many notices you actually sent out on
these in the rural areas. I think you'll see it 2, 3, 4 people.
Michael Harvey: I don't dispute that there are situations where you have areas with large properties where even a
1000 feet wouldn't make much difference.
Tony Blake: I understand that registered mail is a cost. It seems to me like there could be other ways to
communicate. Those are my comments.
Michael Harvey: Ok
Paul Guthrie: I want to go the other way, I think the bigger problem may be in urbanizing areas in terms of the costs.
I thought about our house and it is on a less than one acre lot and under the 500 foot rule, everywhere except one
location you'd pick up maybe 6 or 8 maybe 10 houses. Right across from us is a condominium with about 25 units.
So to do anything that requires a Special Use Permit, the homeowner would maybe need 35 registered letters. I can
conceive of this in a larger or fringe of an urban area having a high density property of one property among many
others that could raise the costs for the applicant significantly. I am a little concerned about what that does to the
small, not to the large corporate well - financed organization, but the small organization that for one reason or another
needs a Special Use Permit. Assuming it is compatible with the general character of the neighborhood, having to
spend that money.
Michael Harvey: Again, Mr. Blake is not incorrect and you're not incorrect either. There are pros and cons to both
sides of the equation.
Bryant Warren: I noticed in the past when you get ready to do something there are signs put up all around the
neighborhood and area, even if we stick with the 500 feet that should be sufficient enough especially if you continue
putting the signs up.
Laura Nicholson: Not to belabor the point, but isn't there a way to just conditionally make it 500 feet for an urban
area but as a rural area make it larger? That way it's not changing the whole fabric, could you change it depending
on..
Michael Harvey: I don't know how comfortable I would be with that because that gives greater utility to a Class 2
Kennel for example locating in one area in the County versus another area in the County. I think that I'm going to err
on the side of caution and treat all applicants the same.
Pete Hallenbeck: Actually, I'll comment on that, we seem to run into this problem a lot that we almost need a settled
density function. Something that tells you how dense is this and that is used as criteria for notification area. The
problem with that is you can argue over a number, you can argue over a function and whatever you come up with
people putting up kennels will gain the system to do what they want. It's one of those difficult problems that never
have a right answer.
Craig Benedict: As part of our discussion more recently about the use of technology and how to get information out
to people different than the mailings, definitely the signs on the property so we are going to start putting our
application out there. Evidently there'll be some mapping and that could be with that and people will see the signs
and be able to look on line to see what's happening. I think we'll use technology, even the statutes are saying that
how we advertise is being liberalized to include media.
Pete Hallenbeck: Tony you talked about a sample window.
2
22
Approved 11/5/14
Tony Blake: I was thinking more within a certain minimum distance from the project start and a maximum as well.
Lisa Stuckey: Are you worried they'll do it like 60 days out?
Tony Blake: Yea, or six months and by then everybody has forgotten or then all of a sudden everybody says, I
remember but it was too long ago.
Michael Harvey: Let me try to address that point. Applications are typically submitted currently 60 days to 70 days
before a public hearing, depending on what public hearing. Class A is County Commissioners, four quarterly public
hearing and Class B is Board of Adjustment. So you have a window usually of 50 to 60 days before public hearing
when application becomes submitted, it is then scheduled for a public hearing. We basically have a five day window
according to our ordinance to ascertain whether or not the application is complete and either reject it or accept it and
then submit it for review. Essentially how this process is going to work now is basically once we determine the
application is viable, meaning all components have been submitted and its complete, we are submitting it for peer
review, not only to internal county departments but external planning partners. The Department of Transportation is
a key example. We then have to send out notices advertising the meeting because of the timeline and the window
before the public hearing so basically you're getting a letter from the planning department 14 day minimum before the
neighborhood meeting. That's when we have to send it out as the ordinance is currently proposed. The
neighborhood meeting has to be held 45 days prior to the public hearing is scheduled. So it is conceivable if an
applicant asks to withdraw from one hearing or postpone to a hearing they would have to then also potentially have a
second neighborhood meeting if the first one isn't held. I don't think you're going to go 6, 8 months or a year with
people having a gap between the neighborhood meeting to a public hearing. With the amount of money involved. I
understand what you are saying but I think we're better served by an ordinance amendment that says this has to
happen a minimum of days before the hearing which then gives everybody sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.
MOTION by Laura Nicholson to recommend approval of the UDO text amendments. Seconded by James Lea.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the statement of consistency. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Attachment 5 23
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) to require a neighborhood information meeting prior to the review of Special Use Permit
applications at a public hearing.
The Planning Board finds:
a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and,
b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A -341 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within
the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan, as amended, or part thereof including but not limited to, the
following:
Chapter 5 — Land Use Element — Section 5.6 Goals — Land Use Goal 6:
A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and
responsive.
c. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it:
1. Increases the opportunity for the general public to become more aware of,
and directly involved in, the County's planning program.
d. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Provides an opportunity for interested residents and property owners to
understand a project, obtain more understanding of the review process, and
provide comments in advance of the public hearing.
2. Promotes an open, transparent, and responsive permit review process.
The Planning Board of Orange County hereby recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed UDO text amendment.
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair
Date
I
Attachment 6
RES- 2014 -074
RESOLUTION CONCERNING
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED
ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
24
WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) requiring a neighborhood information meeting prior to the review of Special
Use Permit applications at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the amendment is intended to address a concern that local residents and
property owners are not being provided adequate time to understand, and prepare for, the
review of Special Use Permit applications; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners finds:
a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and,
b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A -341 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within
the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan, as amended, or part thereof including but not limited to, the
following:
Chapter 5 — Land Use Element — Section 5.6 Goals — Land Use Goal 6:
A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and
responsive.
c. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it:
1. Increases the opportunity for the general public to become more aware of,
and directly involved in, the County's planning program.
d. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Provides an opportunity for interested residents and property owners to
understand a project, obtain more understanding of the review process, and
provide comments in advance of the public hearing.
2. Promotes an open, transparent, and responsive permit review process.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed
Unified Development Ordinance text amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and the BOCC hereby adopts this statement of consistency signifying same.
25
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2014.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on
, 2014 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
141110
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
f
26
ORDINANCE NUMBER: ORD- 2014 -043
Attachment 7
ORDINANCE APPROVING
PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
REQUIRING NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETINGS
FOR ALL SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) requiring a neighborhood information meeting prior to the review of Special
Use Permit applications at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the amendment is intended to address a concern that local residents and
property owners are not being provided adequate time to understand, and prepare for, the
review of Special Use Permit applications; and
WHEREAS, the County has determined existing language within the UDO needs to
be modified to ensure a more transparent and open project review process; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A -341
of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the
record denoting that the zoning text amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan, as amended, as detailed within a previously adopted Statement of
Consistency, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning text amendment is reasonable
and in the public interest as detailed within a previously adopted Statement of Consistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance is hereby amended as depicted within the attached
pages.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2014.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2014 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
2014.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
27
W
UDO AMENDMENT PACKET NOTES:
The following packet details the proposed text amendments requiring a neighborhood
information meeting be held prior to the review of all Special Use Permit applications before a
public hearing. The amendment package also proposes the re- numbering and reformatting of
Section 2.7 to accommodate the new standards.
As the number of affected pages /sections of the existing UDO are being modified with this
proposal, staff has divided the proposed amendments into the following color coded
classifications:
• Red Underlined Text: Denotes new, proposed text, that staff is suggesting be added to
the UDO.
• Red StrikethFe gh Tex,: Denotes existing text proposed for deletion.
• Green Underlined Texi: Denotes modifications made following the September 8, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing.
Staff has included footnotes within the amendment package to provide additional
information /rationale concerning the proposed amendments to aid in your review.
Only those pages of the UDO impacted by the proposed modification(s) have been included
within this packet. Some text on the following pages has a large "X" through it to denote that
these sections are not part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only
because in the full UDO it is on the same page as text proposed for amendment or footnotes
from previous sections `spill over' onto the included page. Text with a large "X" is not proposed
for modification.
Please note that the page numbers in this amendment packet may or may not necessarily
correspond to the page numbers in the adopted UDO because adding text may shift all of
the text /sections downward.
Users are reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that
regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available online at:
http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /Ordinances.asp
Article 2: Procedures 29
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
(4) For Class A Special Uses 26 copies of the site plan, /ndB ss B Speci
Uses 10 copies of the site plan, prepared by a regist Carotin and
surveyor, landscape architect, architect, or engineer, ll con n the
information listed in Section 2.5.
( If the application involves a Preliminary Subdivision P es of the Plat
prepared in accordance with Section 7.14 sh all be pr(6) list of all parcels located within 500 feet of the subjand the name and
a ess of each property owner, as currently listed in ge County tax
(7) Elevation of all structures proposed to be use in the development.
(8) For Class A ecial Uses 26 copies and fo Class B Special Uses 10 copies of
the Environmen I Assessment and /or vironmental Impact Statement, if
required by Sectio 6.16.
(9) Method of disposal of es, limbs stumps and construction debris associated
with the permitted activit , whi shall be by some method other than open
burning.
(10) Statement from the appl' ant in icating the anticipated development schedule for
the build -out of the pr ect.
(11) Statement from t applicant in justific ti of any request for vesting for a period
of more than t years (five years maxi m).
2.7.4 Staff Review
(A) The Plan nin irector shall cause an analysis to be made Xthe application by qualified
/The ta es of the County and other agencies or officials appropriate.
ning Director shall submit the analysis to the Board of C my Commissioners
lanning Board, in the case of Class A Special Uses, or the oard of Adjustment,
e of Class B Special Uses.
opriate Board reviewing the application shall receive and enter th \detai during the public hearing. The analysis shall be subject to exam parties and the Planning Director shall be subject to cross - exam
regarding the analysis.
(D) The Planning Director shall not make a recommendation on the general fin
within Section 5.3 of this Ordinance
2.7.5 Neighborhood Information Meeting
A) Before a Public Hearina may be held for a Special Use the applicant is reauired to
schedule, ` "n +h the occic +onno of the Dlonnino Deem fmon+ 7 a minimum of one
neighborhood information meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain surrounding
Property owner input and comments on the proposed development project and allow staff
an opportunity to explain the review process associated with the request.
(B) The applicant shall obtain property owner mailing address information from the Orange
County Planning Department, which shall utilize Orange County Land Records data, and
1 County Attorney recommends the gFeen stFike thFe gh text be deleted.
z During the review of a Class A Special Use Permit application at the May 27, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing (QPH)
it was suggested there should be a neighborhood information meeting held prior to the public hearing to allow the
developer to explain the project to surrounding property owners as well as allow staff to review the process by
which Special Use Permits are processed (i.e. quasi - judicial hearing procedures). This amendment will address the
concern(s) expressed by BOCC and Planning Board members during the May QPH.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -17
Article 2: Procedures 30
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
shall mail certified notices of the meeting date and time to each property owner within
500 feet of the property for which a Special Use has been requested.
(C) The applicant shall mail notice of the Neighborhood Information Meeting a minimum of 14
days prior to the date of the meeting.
(D) The applicant shall post a sign on the property advertising the date, place, and time of the
meeting a minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the meeting.
(E) The meeting shall be held a minimum of 453 days prior to the date of the Public Hearing .4
There are no other
substantive
amendments to
Section 2.7 other
than re- numbering.
Staff has not
included all of the
renumber sections
as part of this
review.
Neighborhood information meetings for telecommunication facilities shall be held in
accordance with the provisions of Section 5.10.8 (B) (2).
otice Requirements for Class A Special Use Permits
The Planning Director shall give public notice of the date, time and place of the public
hearing to be held to receive comments, testimony and exhibits pertaining to the
application for a Special Use.
Such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County
once a week for two successive weeks, with the first notice to be published not less than
ten days nor more than 25 days prior to the date of the 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.
The Planning Director shall post on the affected property a notice of the public hearing at
least ten days prior to the date of said hearing.
Written notice shall be sent by certified mail to all adjacent property owners not less than
15 days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose property
lies within five hundred feet of the affected property and whose names and addresses are
currently listed in the Orange County tax records.
otice Requirements for Class B Special Use Permits
Notice Requirements for Class B Special Use Permits shall follow the procedures in Section
2.12.6.
2772.7.8 Nature of Proceedings
(A) The review of Special Use Permit applications shall be conducted during a public hearing
by the decision - making board.
(B) The review of a Special Use Permit application is a quasi - judicial process, where the
Board responsible for rendering a decision acts much like a panel of judges. The Board
hears factual evidence and sworn testimony presented at an evidentiary hearing, and
then makes findings of fact supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence.
(C) The chair or presiding officer of the hearing shall swear all parties intending to present
evidence or testimony during the hearing.
(D) The chair or presiding officer may take whatever action is necessary to limit testimony to
the presentation of new factual evidence that is material to the application, to ensure fair
and orderly proceedings, and to otherwise promote the efficient and effective gathering of
evidence. Such actions may include:
3 Staff has changed the timeframe for holding the neighborhood meeting consistent with BOCC and Planning Board
direction from the September 8, 2014 public hearing denoting it in green bold text.
4 Typically, neighborhood information meetings are required to occur 14 days prior to a public hearing. Staff is
recommending 30 days to ensure there is adequate time for adjacent property owners /residents to receive
information related to the quasi - judicial review process and secure the necessary experts to argue for /against a
specific project.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -18
Article 2: Procedures 31
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
(C) Text amendments to this Ordinance for stormwater provisions shall comply with the
requirements in effect for any other text amendment. ,
2.9.1 Conditional Use District (CUD
(A) \ Generally
Any use permitted under the CUD process shall conform to all pplicable
development regulations for the corresponding general use z Wing district as well
as any specific development standards outlined within this rdinance.
(2) The Board of County Commissioners, in reviewing a CU application, may
i pose such reasonable conditions upon /theplicant l of a UD request as will
of rd protection of the public health, safen al welfare, ensure that
sub antial justice is done, and ensure ere tme1
(3) Only t se conditions mutually agreed to plicant and the Board of
County ommissioners may be imposedD application.
(4) Within the conomic Development Distris), there are specific uses that
require appr al of a CUD. These uses on the Table of Permitted
Uses — Econo is Development Districts 5.2).
(B) Applications
Applications to establish a D shall be s
processed in accordance with e proced
(1) Zoning Atlas amendmen (Sect n
(2) Class A Special Use Permi ecti
(3) The provisions of this Sec i n.
(C) Submittal Requirements
(1) In addition to the CU application 1
following informatio
u itted to the Planning Director and shall be
e(s) for:
2.8),
on 2.7), and
, an applicant shall also submit the
(a) A site pVh prepared in accorda ce with the provisions of Section 2.5
includi g the following:
A dY etailed description of the roposed use of property including
an outline of the proposed op ational characteristics of the
proposed development,
(ii) A detailed traffic survey, regardles of the estimated number of
trips per day, prepared in accordan with all applicable North
Carolina Department of Transportatio (NC DOT) requirements
or standards as well as Section 6.17 of is Ordinance,
(iii) The appropriate environmental document repared in
accordance with Section 6.16; and
(iv) A landscape plan showing the location of on-sN significant
trees; proposed screening, buffers, and landsca Nng; and any
proposed treatment of any existing natural feature X.
(b) A summary of utility services, including processing of waste ter.
(c) A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal; and
(d) Any other information identified during the pre - application confere
deemed essential to demonstrate the project's compliance with th
regulations.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -26
Article 2: Procedures 32
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
(2) Les of the application package required in ve shall be submitted by
the applican .
(3) The Plannin /or Board o mmissioners may request
a information in order to evaluate and proper the application
for a CUD.
(D) Neighborhood Information Meeting
(1) Before a Public Hearing may be held on an accepted application for a CUD, the
applicant is required to schedule, with the assistance of the Planning
Department, a minimum of one neighborhood information meeting. The purpose
of this meeting is to obtain surrounding property owner input and comments on
the proposed development project.
(2) The applicant shall obtain property owner mailing address information from the
Orange County' and °°^^rte'° d8paF +m°^ +Planning Department 5 and shall mail
certified notices of the meeting date and time to each property owner within 500
feet of the property for which a CUD has been requested.
(3) The notices shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the
proposed Neighborhood Information Meeting 6.
(4) The applicant shall post a sign on the property advertising the date, place, and
time of the meeting a minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the meeting.
{4)(5) The Neighborhood Information Meeting shall be held a minimum of 44-45 $ days
prior to the date of the Public Hearing where the application is scheduled for
review and public comment.
(E) Review and Evaluation of Application
(1) All CUD applications shall be reviewed and acted upon in accordance with the
review procedures for Class A Special Use Permits (Section 2.7).
(2) The following shall be considered when evaluating an application for a CUD:
(a) The policies and objectives of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan,
particularly in relation to the use, proposed site, and surrounding area;
(b) The policies and objectives of any adopted Small Area Plan(s) relating to
the area; and
(c) The potential impacts to the surrounding area including, but not limited,
to: traffic, storm water drainage, compatibility of land use activities, and
land values.
(3) The Board of County Commissioners may attach reasonable and appropriate
conditions to the location, nature, and extent of the proposed use. Such
conditions may address the following:
(a) The characteristics of the proposed use and its relationship to
surrounding property and existing land uses,
5 Planning staff already provides this service during the pre - application conference related to a Special Use or
Conditional Use project. The proposed amendment is designed to ensure local regulations mirrors current
practice.
6 County attorney recommended change denoted in green underlined text. Originally we had decided not to use
the full text of 'Neighborhood Information Meeting' and just used 'meeting'. The Attorney's office wanted the
language put back and for the Ordinance to spell out 'Neighborhood Information Meeting' in its entirety in this
section.
Staff inadvertently left out the requirement for posting of a sign advertising the neighborhood meeting. This
corrects the error.
8 We are changing the timeframe to 45 days.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -27
Article 2: Procedures 33
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
(3) The application for an extension request shall be submitted a minimum of six
months prior to the expiration of the permit.
Alterations to an Approved CUD
(1) Changes to approved plans and conditions of development shall be tr ated as
changes to the zoning atlas and shall be processed as an amendm t to such as
contained in Section 2.8.
I ning Director may approve minor changes without goi through the
ent process. The Planning Director, at his /her discre "on, may elect not
any proposal as a minor change and will forward th detailed application
ges to the Planning Board and Board of County C missioners for
ration in accordance with the procedures outline herein.
change is one that will not:
Alter the basic relationship of the proposed evelopment to adjacent
property, ter the approved land uses,
Inc ase the density or intensity of velopment, and /or
Decre e the off - street parking r io or reduce the buffer yards provided
at the b ndary of the site.
2.9.2 Conditional Zoning District
(A) Generally
Only those uses listed on the Tab of ermitted Uses in Section 5.2 for a specific
Conditional Zoning District and det i d in Section 3.8 of this Ordinance shall be
developed.
(B) Applications
Applications to rezone prope to a CZD s all be submitted to the Planning Director and
shall be processed in accor ance with the p cedure(s) for:
(1) Zoning Atlas am dment (Section 2.8),
(2) Site plans (Se ion 2.5) for CZDs that req 're a site plan, and
(3) The provisi s of this Section.
(C) Submittal Reclu' ements
(1) In ad ' ion to the CZD application form, an applic t shall also submit the
follo ing information:
( A site plan prepared in accordance with the pr visions of Section 2.5 of
this Ordinance, except for MPD -CZ applications see (C)(2) below).
(b) A detailed description of the proposed use of prop y including an
outline of the proposed development.
(c) A detailed traffic survey, regardless of the estimated nu ber of trips per
day, prepared in accordance with all applicable North Ca lina
Department of Transportation (NC DOT) requirements or s ndards as
well as Section 6.17 of this Ordinance.
(d) The appropriate Environmental Document prepared in accorda e with
Section 6.16.
(e) A landscape plan showing the location of on -site significant trees;
proposed screening, buffers, and landscaping; and any proposed
treatment of any existing natural features.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -29
Article 2: Procedures 34
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
(f) A summary of utility services, including processing of wast er.
A schedule of construction of all elements of the p sal.
(h) other information identified during the - application conference
dee essential to demonstrate th oject's compliance with these
regulations.
(2) In lieu of the requirements in ) above, an application for a Master Plan
Development (MPD) C all inc the requirements in Section 6.7. The
requirements of (1 through (1)(h) abo re applicable for MPD -CZ
applications.
(3) 26 es of the application package required in (1) and bove shall be
bmitted by the applicant.
The Planning Board and /or Board of County Commissioners may requ6
additional information in order to evaluate and properly process the appl
for a CZD.
(D) Neighborhood Information Meeting 9
(1) Before a Public Hearing may be held on an accepted application for a CZD, the
applicant is required to schedule, with the assistance of the Planning
Department, a minimum of one neighborhood information meeting. The purpose
of this meeting is to obtain surrounding property owner input and comments on
the proposed development project.
(2) The applicant shall obtain property owner mailing address information from the
Orange County Land Records department and shall mail certified notices of the
meeting date and time to each property owner within 500 feet of the property for
which a CZD has been requested.
(3) The notices shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the
proposed Neighborhood Information Meeting.
(4) The Neighborhood Information Meeting shall be held a minimum of 14 days prior
to the date of the Public Hearing where the application is scheduled for review
and public comment.
Review and Evaluation of Application
The review, processing, and evaluation of a CZD application is a legisl i process
subject,to judicial review using the same procedures and standar review that apply
to generaN6,v. district zoning decisions.
(F) Approval and Co
(1) The Board of Count mmissione all take action on the application to
rezone the property in acc e with the procedures outlined within Section
2.8.
(2) The applicant o County may recomme hat reasonable and appropriate
conditions attached to the approval of the app i ion
(3) C itions and site - specific standards shall be limited to t that address the
conformance of the development to County ordinances, the adop
Comprehensive Plan, or any other relevant plans that address the imp
reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed development. Any su
conditions may address:
9 Originally staff had anticipated amending this section to require a neighborhood information meeting to be held
30 days prior to a public hearing to review a CZD application. As the review of this type of application does not
involve a Special Use Permit and is completed through a legislative review process (i.e. no sworn expert
testimony), staff has determined existing review requirements are sufficient.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -30
Article 5: Uses 35
Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
(2) Attendees shall include all carriers and tower companies who have either file
applications the previous year or anyone who has expressed an interest in f' ng
an application to construct a telecommunication support facility /them ounty.
(3) The County shall notify each party of the date, time, and place og no
later than 30 days prior to the meeting.
(4) Those individuals /firms intent on submitting development applicexpected to attend the meeting. While a lack of attendance will the
submittal of an application, it will prevent the applicant's ability in
\ the discussions outlining the areas of concentration for the to tion of
telecommunication support structures for that given year.
(D)
5.10.4 Existing Wire
(1)
ions for the development of telecommunication support sP(Octures shall be
ed in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
Telecommunications Support Structures
Tele mmunications equipment as accessory u s may be placed on existing
wireleslk support structures in accordance withtfie provisions of this Ordinance.
(2) Notwithst ding the other provisions of Sec � n 5.10, telecommunications towers
in existenc s of December 10, 2002, m be replaced with a wireless support
structure of a al or less visual impact er approval by the Planning Director.
However, if the roposed new wireless upport structure would not be consistent
with the minimu tandards under S ction 5.10, replacement must be approved
as provided for in t `s Ordinance.
5.10.5 Wireless Telecommunications Supp64t Structures and Equipment as Principal or
Accessory Uses \
(A) Wireless telecommunications supp structures shall be permitted as a principal or
accessory use in accordance wit the able of Permitted Uses and as follows:
(1) On property owned by he Count or any public entity, except those designated
as historic propertie or sites, the CRunty may, in its sole discretion as the owner
of the property, au orize the applica -on and use of County property after the
applica/an a lease agreement cceptable fo the County.
(2) Wireleunications facilities, as art of existing utility poles shall be
permitccessory use. Wireless fa ilities shall be constructed as part of
the exipoles or as replacements fo the existing utility poles. No
freestars constructed exclusively for ersonal wireless services shall
be per in utility easements.
(3) The lacement of new wireless telecommunications upport structures shall be in
ac ordance with the Table of Permitted Uses, except permitted in the Master
Tifalecommunications Plan ( "Plan ") or by Section 5.10.6 this Ordinance.
5.10.6 Administrati)(e Approval of Certain Telecommunication Facilities
(A) Applicability
he following telecommunication facilities may be approved administrativelS by the
Planning Staff provided that all of the provisions contained in Section 5.10 a met:
(1) New stealth telecommunications wireless support structures up to 75 f t in
height that are sufficiently disguised so as to minimize visual impact;
(2) Any wireless support structure less than 75 feet in height;
(3) Any wireless support structure less than 200 feet in height located on property
that is owned or leased by Orange County; and
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -93
Article 5: Uses 36
Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
(4) Any wireless support structure less than 200 feet in height on which the ner of
such facility permits the County to collocate its wireless facilities on structure
at no charge to the County when the location of such facility is enefit to the
County as determined in the sole discretion of the County.
(5) A ' en decision approving or denying an applicat' for administrative approval
of a tele munication facility under this secti hall be issued no later than 45
days followin e submission of a comple application.
(6) Collocation applicati meeting th Ilowing requirements:
(a) The proposed adds ' I facility will not increase the overall height and
width of the tow or wir ss support structure to which the wireless
facilities ar be attached c istent with Section 2.7.14 of the
Ordina
(b) e proposed additional facility will comp ith applicable regulations,
restrictions, or conditions, if any, applied to th i itial wireless facilities
placed on the tower or other wireless support struc e.
(c) The proposed additional wireless facilities comply with all eral, State,
and local safety requirements.
(d) The proposed additional facility does not exceed the applicable weigh
limits for the wireless support structure.
(B) Submittal Requirements
All applications for telecommunication facilities that are eligible for administrative
approval shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with the standards of Section
5.10.8 of this Ordinance.
(C) Neighborhood Information Meeting "
(1) For all administratively approved wireless support structures, excluding
collocations, a neighborhood information meeting shall be scheduled in
accordance with the provisions of Section 5.10.8
5.10.7 Antennas Not Located on Wireless Telecommunications Support Structures
(A) General Standards
(1) To minimize adverse visual impacts, stealth antenna types shall be preferred. If
a non - stealth antenna is proposed, the application shall be required to
demonstrate, in a technical manner acceptable to the Planning Director, why the
stealth antenna (i.e. an antenna incorporated into the architecture of the building
or fully screened from view from sight proximate to the antenna) cannot be used
for the particular application. This does not preclude a combination of the
various types of antennas.
(2) Antenna dimensions shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. A
statement shall be submitted, prepared by a professional engineer competent to
evaluate antenna choices, to certify the technical need for the required
dimensions.
(3) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by the Inspections Division, the
application shall provide evidence that the wireless telecommunication support
structure or antennas are in compliance with FAA regulations. Where an
antenna will not exceed the highest point of the existing structure upon which it is
to be mounted, such evidence shall not be required.
11 Staff is adding language to ensure all administratively approved towers will comply with the same neighborhood
information meeting requirements as any other regulated wireless support facility.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -94
Article 5: Uses 37
Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
engineer certification statement shall include certification that t
structure can support the load superimposed from the wirel s support
structure. All wireless support structures shall have the acity to
permit multiple users; at a minimum monopole wireles support
structures shall be structurally designed to accom date four users and
self- support/lattice or guyed wireless support str tures shall, at a
minimum accommodate three users.
(B) General Su ittal Requirements — Special Use Perm'
In addition to the neral submittal requirements de ed herein, and the specific
submittal requiremen for all Special Use Permit plications detailed within Section 2.7
of this Ordinance, applic is shall be required adhere to the following:
(1) Overall Policy and sired Goa
The overall policy and de e goals for Special Use Permits for wireless
telecommunications supp uctures shall be promoting and encouraging,
wherever possible, the lowing.
(a) Alternative o constructing n wireless support structures, including
but not ' ited to the collocation wireless telecommunications
equi ent and mitigating the visua ffect of a wireless
to communication support structure to n extent not commercially
mpracticable; and
(b The placement, height and quantity of wireless Iecommunications
towers and equipment in such a manner, includin ut not limited to the
use of stealth technology or camouflage techniques, minimize adverse
aesthetic and visual impacts on the land, property, builds s, and other
facilities adjacent to, surrounding, and in generally the same rea as the
requested location of such wireless telecommunications suppo
structure, which shall mean using the least visually and physically
intrusive facility that is not technologically or commercially impractica
under the facts and circumstances.
(2) Balloon Test
(a) The applicant shall, at least six weeks prior to a Class B Special Use
Permit public hearing and at least 11 weeks prior to a Class A Special
Use Permit public hearing, conduct a balloon test whereby the applicant
shall arrange to fly, or raise upon a temporary mast, a minimum of 1 U
in length, brightly colored red or orange balloon at the maximum height
of the proposed new wireless support structure.
(b) The balloon test shall be flown for at least four consecutive daylight
hours starting sometime between 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. on the dates
chosen.
(c) A notice of the dates (including a second date in case of poor visibility,
weather or atmospheric conditions on the initial date), times, and location
of the balloon test shall be mailed, by certified mail, return receipt
requested, by the applicant, to all persons owning property within 1,000
feet of the subject parcel no less than 14 days in advance of the first test
date. The data contained within the office of Orange County Land
Records shall be used as the primary source for determining which
residents are to receive notice of the balloon tests.
This notice shall also inform local residents that a neighborhood
information meeting shall be held the day of the balloon test so that the
applicant can explain the proposal and Planning staff, including the
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -100
Article 5: Uses 38
Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
County's telecommunications consultant can explain the Special Use
Permit review process.
(d) The primary date shall be on a weekend (excluding legal holidays), t to
prevent delays in the processing of the application, and in case of oor
weather or atmospheric conditions on the initial date, the secon ary
date may be a weekday.
(e) The applicant shall inform the County Planning Staff, in wri i g, of the
dates and times of the test at least 14 days in advance.
\Submitt applicant shall also post a sign on the subject pr erty, and
ctional signs posted at locations to be determin by Planning Staff.
signs shall measure no more than nine squa feet in area and no
than four square feet in area, giving the co act information of the
unty Planning Department, the proposed tes, times, and location of
balloon test. The signs shall be posted meet the same time limits
provided for in the balloon test notific on as stated above.
equirements
he information required here as well as Section 2.7, the following
mi d as part of the applicat' n:
(a) A site pla showing the follow g:
(i) The tire site (in ding property boundary lines) and size of all
existin tructur within 500 feet of the site,
(ii) Existing a roposecl structures on site,
(iii) VThefall e f the tower, (iv) nd pro sed topography at a contour interval of five
(v) lly designat floodways and floodplains, or the
of alluvial soils.
(b) Plan/, and elevations for all propos structures and descriptions of the
co rand nature of all exterior materia along with the make, model, and
anufacturer of the proposed structure, aximum antenna heights, and
power levels.
(c) A Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan dra at the same scale as
the site plan, showing the existing and propose trees\scr shrubs, ground
cover and other landscape materials. This plan s mize adverse
visual effects of wireless telecommunications suptures and
antennas through careful design, siting, landscapng and
innovative c amouflaging techniques.
(d) Evidence that the applicant has investigated the possibilitie f placing
the proposed equipment on an existing wireless support struc re. Such
evidence shall consist of:
(i) A listing of all wireless telecommunications support structur \s
within a two mile radius of the proposed wireless support \
structure site and a listing of all wireless support structure, utilit,,
poles and other structures in the vicinity of the proposed facility
iz As we currently require a balloon test be held prior to a public hearing reviewing a telecommunication
application, staff believes it is reasonable to hold a neighborhood information meeting at the same time on -site so
that interested parties can not only visualize the height of a proposed tower but ask questions related to the
review process.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -101