HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-05-2015 - 5-e - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Public Hearing Process Revisions - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 5, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-e
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment— Public Hearing Process
Revisions - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments
Accepted)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1 . Comprehensive Plan/UDO Amendment Perdita Holtz, Planning, 245-2578
Outline Form Craig Benedict, Planning, 245-2592
2. Statement of Consistency
3. Proposed Ordinance
4. Excerpt of September 8, 2015 Draft Quarterly
Public Hearing Minutes
5. Excerpt of October 7, 2015 Draft Planning
Board Minutes and Signed Statement of
Consistency
6. Timeline Examples
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make
a decision on text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) initiated by the
Planning Director to revise the existing public hearing process for UDO-, Comprehensive Plan-,
and Zoning Atlas-related items.
BACKGROUND: The "Amendment Outline Form" (Attachment 1) for these amendments was
approved by the BOCC at its June 2, 2015 regular meeting, after discussion of the topic at the
May 12, 2015 BOCC work session. Please see Section B of Attachment 1 for background and
analysis, including information on three objectives at the top of page 4 of the Amendment Outline
Form.
The amendment was presented at the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. Agenda
materials from that meeting are available at
http://www.orangecountync.gov/document center/BOCCAgendaMinutes/150908.pdf. The video
for the public hearing is available for viewing at: http://orange-
nc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.Php?view id=2&clip id=958 and an excerpt of the draft minutes
are included in Attachment 4.
As a result of comments made at the public hearing, the following modifications have been made
to the amendment materials (depicted in uranyt; text in Attachment 3):
2
• The newspaper legal advertisement for Special Use Permits will be retained. Staff will
work on language to be included in the legal ads to clarify who may testify in quasi-judicial
matters since the general public does not have standing in quasi-judicial matters, but may
attend the hearing.
• The notice distance requirement for all types of amendments or projects that require
mailed notification is proposed to be increased from 500 feet to 1,000 feet. Staff is
proposing that notices be mailed via first class mail instead of certified mail, as is currently
done, to keep costs and staff time lower.
o The Planning Board has recommended that the outside of envelopes or postcards
be marked with "Notice of Public Hearing" so that recipients are more aware of the
contents of the notification. This recommendation has been included (in greeil text)
in the amendment package in Attachment 3.
The BOCC requested input from the Planning Board on whether a quorum of Planning Board
members should be necessary in order to hold a Quarterly Public Hearing. This topic was
discussed at the October 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting and an excerpt of the draft minutes
are included in Attachment 5. The majority of Planning Board members felt that, while the
Planning Board should be expected to attend the quarterly public hearings, a quorum of Planning
Board members should not be required in order to proceed with holding a public hearing.
The Planning Board also suggested the addition of language to the Planning Board Policies and
Procedures to provide clarity for members regarding attendance at quarterly public hearings.
The language of the text amendments in Attachment 3 does not require a quorum of Planning
Board members in order to hold a quarterly public hearing and additional language has been
added to the Planning Board Policies and Procedures (in greeil text) to clarify attendance
expectations.
Timeline examples for the revised processes are included in Attachment 6. Review timeframes
for Comprehensive Plan actions, UDO text amendments, and general use zoning district
amendments could be shortened to as little as eight (8) weeks from application submittal
deadlines if the revised processes are adopted. The current timeframe for these types of actions
is approximately four (4) months. For Class A Special Use Permits and conditional districts, the
review timeframe could be shortened to as little as ten (10) weeks from application submittal
deadlines if the revised processes are adopted. The current timeframe for these types of actions
is approximately 4-5 months. The ability to have additional review time when warranted is
retained in the proposed processes.
The Ordinance in Attachment 3 includes the following clauses:
• The effective date of the Ordinance is January 1, 2016. If adopted, the revised process
would begin on this date (e.g., items proposed for February 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing
would be the first items processed under the revised procedure).
• A review of the revised process will be conducted after one year to ascertain if the revised
process is working as expected/desired. A report will be made to the BOCC in early 2017.
Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the UDO, any evidence not
presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board's
recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is
for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held
3
open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board's
recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
contained in Attachment 2 and Ordinance contained in Attachment 3.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its October 7, 2015 meeting, the Board voted 9 to 2 to
recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency. An excerpt of draft minutes of the
Planning Board meeting are included in Attachment 5.
The Planning Board voted 9 to 2 to recommend approval of the proposed amendment package,
with revisions suggested by the Planning Board indicated in greeil text within Attachment 3.
The Planning Board's signed Statement of Consistency is included within Attachment 5. Agenda
materials from the October 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting can be viewed at-
ht!p-://www.oranqecountvnc.qov/Full Agenda Packet PB 15.pdf.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Existing staff will complete the necessary work required for this project.
Adoption of the proposed revisions is not expected to cause significant financial impacts
(negative or positive).
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals is applicable to
this agenda item:
• GOAL: Enable Full Civic Participation
Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and
volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments; and
4. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Statement of Consistency, contained within
Attachment 2, and the Ordinance amending the UDO and Planning Board Policies and
Procedures contained within Attachment 3, as recommended by the Planning Board and
staff.
Attachment 1 4
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning-2015-09
Revisions to Public Hearing 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) 1.6.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11.6 (correct typo), 2.12.6, and
5.10.2.
® Other: Planning Board Rules of Procedure to: 1) require that the Planning
Board Chair (or Vice-Chair in Chair's absence) attend quarterly public
hearings and BOCC meetings at which a decision is scheduled for items
on which the Planning Board has made a recommendation; 2) clarify
attendance expectations of Planning Board members at quarterly public
hearings; and 3) encourage Planning Board members to attend
Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs) for Class A Special Use
Permits and Conditional Zoning Districts and to address procedures for
notification regarding NIMs.
1
5
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
To consider revisions to the current public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan
Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas amendments.
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.
2. Analysis
This topic was discussed extensively in 2014, after being heard at the September
2014 quarterly public hearing. The public hearing for the amendments, as proposed
in 2014, was closed in November 2014 when it became apparent that the proposal
would change significantly enough to require another public hearing. The topic was
recently discussed at the May 12, 2015 BOCC work session. Work session materials
include links to prior materials and are available
at: htt p://www.orangecountync.gov/150512.pdf.
The Ordinance Review Committee (ORC), a function of the Planning Board, reviewed
draft language in July and August 2015. At the time, internal staff/attorney review
was ongoing and the materials to be presented at public hearing have been modified
from the versions the ORC reviewed. ORC agenda materials and meeting notes are
available at-
http://www.orangecountync.gov/ORC Agenda Packet July 2015.pdf
http://www.orangecountync.gov/7 1 15 ORC Notes.pdf
http://www.orangecount�nc.gov/O C Agenda Package Aug 2015.pdf
http://www.orangecountync.gov/8 5 15 ORC Notes.pdf
Proposed Revisions
The following revisions are being proposed:
• Planning Board review/recommendation would occur prior to the public
hearing for both legislative and quasi-judicial (Class A Special Use Permit)
items. (The existing process is for Planning Board review/recommendation to
occur after the public hearing).
o Notification of the Planning Board meeting would be mailed/posted for
items requiring such notice (e.g., map amendments or development
projects) and the public would be able to address the Planning Board at
its meeting. The proposed process would allow for public notification
and involvement earlier than the existing process.
• No longer require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a
quarterly public hearing. Planning Board members would still be expected to
attend the hearing but a quorum of members would not be necessary in order
for the hearing to be held. This revision would mean that the quarterly public
hearings would no longer be considered joint BOCC/Planning Board hearings
since, without a quorum requirement, the Planning Board could not be
considered an official board in attendance.
o Revise the Planning Board Policies and Procedures to require that the
2
6
Planning Board Chair, or Vice-Chair in the Chair's absence, attend the
quarterly public hearings and also the BOCC meetings at which a
decision is scheduled for items on which the Planning Board has made
a recommendation.
• Allow Comprehensive Plan amendments to be heard at any quarterly public
hearing. Existing language that states "principal" Comprehensive Plan
amendments are "generally" considered only once per year at the quarterly
public hearing in February is proposed for deletion (Section 2.3.7).
Additionally, language that classifies Comprehensive Plan amendments into
"principal" and "secondary" amendments (Section 2.3.4) is proposed for
deletion because it is relevant only in conjunction with Section 2.3.7.
• Legal advertisement of quasi-judicial hearing items: due to comments made
at the September 8, 2015 public hearing, staff is suggesting that the
newspaper legal advertisement for Special Use Permits will be retained and
that staff work on language to be included in the legal ads to clarify who may
testify in quasi-judicial matters. [Within the materials presented at the public
hearing, the Attorney's office had suggested that Special Use Permit
applications (both Class A and Class B) no longer be included in legal
advertisements since the general public does not have standing to participate
in quasi-judicial hearings.]
• Mailed Notification Distances: Due to comments made at the September 8
2015 public hearing, the notice distance requirement for all types of
amendments or projects that require mailed notification is proposed to be
increased from 500-feet to 1,000-feet. Staff is proposing that notices be
mailed via first class mail instead of certified mail, as is currently done, to keep
costs and staff time lower.
• Closure of public hearings: Modifications in Section 2.3.11, 2.7.9, and 2.8.9
would mean that the BOCC would close the public hearing the night of the
hearing. At that time, the BOCC could defer a decision to a later BOCC
meeting date; make a decision; or, as a procedural right for legislative items
not included in the text of the UDO, send an application back to the Planning
Board for further review. If the BOCC chooses to defer a decision to a later
meeting date, legislative items could be listed on the future BOCC agenda as
"Regular Agenda" items and additional public comment could be accepted.
The existing requirement for only written comments after the quarterly public
hearing is proposed for deletion.
o In order to meet legal sufficiency requirements, hearings for quasi-
judicial items (Class A Special Use Permits) would be continued to a
date/time certain if additional evidence is requested at the quasi-judicial
hearing. The date/time certain could be a regular BOCC meeting (e.g.
not necessarily the next quarterly public hearing). Written evidence
after the quasi-judicial hearing would no longer be permitted.
• The BOCC may wish to consider adding an additional heading to
its agendas: Quasi-Judicial Hearings, along with a note
explaining that only persons with legal standing can participate in
quasi-judicial hearings. Quasi-judicial items deferred for decision
to a later meeting date or for which the hearing was continued in
order to receive additional evidence would be listed on the
3
7
BOCC agenda under this new heading.
As has been discussed in the past, the bases for some of the proposed revisions are
as follows:
1. Allow the public to make comments at the end of the process.
2. Do not require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a public
hearing.
3. Streamline and speed up the review/decision process when possible.
The proposed revisions are expected to achieve these objectives. When the BOCC
discussed this topic at its May 12, 2015 work session members indicated that if the
process were revised it should be evaluated after one year to ensure it was working
as intended and satisfactorily. If the proposed revisions are adopted, an evaluation
can be scheduled for a year later. Any future revisions to the UDO would need to be
brought forward to a future public hearing.
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 2, 2015
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
September 8, 2015
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
May 12, 2015 —work session
July 1, 2015 — Planning Board ORC (agenda materials are available to all
interested persons)
August 5, 2015 — Continuation of Planning Board ORC (agenda materials are
available to all interested persons)
November 5, 2015 — receive Planning Board recommendation and make decision
d. Other
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
4
8
Orange County ordinance requirements.
a. Planning Board Review:
Amendments proposed in 2014 were discussed extensively by the Planning
Board in October, November, and December 2014. This discussion informs the
2015 proposed amendments.
July 1, 2015 — ORC (Ordinance Review Committee)
August 5, 2015 — ORC (continued from July 1)
October 7, 2015 - recommendation
b. Advisory Boards:
c. Local Government Review:
Proposed text amendments were sent
to JPA partners (Towns of Chapel Hill
and Carrboro) on August 7, 2015 in
accordance with the JPA Agreement
since any project in the Rural Buffer
requiring a public hearing would be
subject to a revised process. To date,
no comments have been received
from the JPA partners.
d. Notice Requirements
Consistent with NC State Statutes — legal ad prior to public hearing
e. Outreach:
❑ General Public:
❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup:
❑ Other:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the
provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid
from FY2015-16 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
s
9
If adopted, the amendments would revise the existing process used by Orange County
to review Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas
amendments.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
See Attachment 3.
Primary Staff Contact:
Perdita Holtz, AICP
Planning Department
919-245-2578
pholtz @orangecountync.gov
6
10
Attachment 2
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 revise the existing public hearing process.
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.
1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the
following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair,
open, efficient, and responsive.
c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it-
1. Allows public participation and comments earlier in the review process than
the existing process.
2. Streamlines and speeds up the review and decision process for low
controversy applications while retaining the potential for additional review
time when warranted.
3. Allows the public to offer comments to elected and appointed officials
throughout the legislative process.
4. Provides a greater level of legal sufficiency for applications reviewed under
the quasi-judicial process (e.g., Special Use Permits).
The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and
findings expressed herein.
Earl McKee, Chair Date
11
Attachment 3
Ordinance # ORD-2015-031
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY
and the PLANNING BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Whereas, Orange County has initiated amendments to its Unified Development Ordinance to
make desired revisions to the existing public hearing process for review of UDO-,
Comprehensive Plan-, and Zoning Atlas-related items, and
Whereas, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Planning Board Policies and
Procedures, and
Whereas, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance have been
deemed complete, and
Whereas, the County has held the required public hearing and has found the proposed text
amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and
Whereas, the County shall review the revised public hearing process after one year and staff is
hereby directed to provide a report to the Board of County Commissioners in early 2017.
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified Development
Ordinance of Orange County and the Planning Board Policies and Procedures are hereby
amended as depicted in the attached pages.
Be it further ordained that this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that
this ordinance is effective on January 1, 2016.
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner
, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of
2015.
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 , 2015 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 2015.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
12
Amendment Package to Revise the Existing Public Hearing Process
Notes
The pages that follow contain the amendments necessary to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text to revise the existing public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan-
and Unified Development Ordinance-related hearing items. This proposal would revise the
existing cadence and have the Planning Board make its recommendation before the public
hearing. See Section B of the Amendment Outline Form (Attachment 1 of agenda item
materials) for a more detailed analysis of the proposed revisions.
Additions/changes proposed as part of the September 8, 2015 quarterly public hearing materials
are depicted in red. Revisions made after the public hearing but before the October 7t" Planning
Board meeting are shown in text. Revisions made in response to discussion at the
October 7t" Planning Board meeting are shown in text. Some of the proposed changes
utilize footnotes to provide a brief explanation as to rationale. Users are reminded that these
excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that regulates land use and
development in Orange County. The full UDO is available online at:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/Ordinances.asp
Please note that the page numbers in this amendment packet may or may not necessarily
correspond to the page numbers in the adopted UDO because adding text may shift all of the
text/sections downward.
Some text on the following pages has a large "X" through it to denote that these sections are not
part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only because in the full UDO it
is on the same page as text proposed for amendment. Text with a large "X" is not proposed for
deletion; proposed deletions are shown in read striLo+hrG nh text.
Proposed modifications to the Planning Board Policies and Procedures are also part of this
amendment package.
Article 1: Administration 13
Section 1.6: Planning Board
(C Each Township within the County shall be represented in the membership of the rd
at least one resident.
(D) The Bo of County Commissioners may by resolution establish rul elated to the
requiremen r volunteer service on the Planning Board, appoi ent and removal of
Planning Board bers, and rules of procedure.
(E) In establishing the Planni Board and its program Board of Commissioners intends
that the Planning Board be g i d by the follo i principle:
(1) The Comprehensive Plan, a y ordinances or other measures to effectuate it,
shall be made with the ge al p se of guiding and accomplishing a
coordinated, and har pious develop t of the County which will, in
accordance wit esent and future needs, st promote health, safety and the
general we e, as well as efficiency in the proc of development; including,
amon er things, adequate provisions for traffic, t romotion of safety from
f and other dangers, adequate provision for light and ai , e promotion of the
healthful and convenient distribution of populations, the promo i of good civic
design, wise and efficient expenditure of public funds, and adequat ovision of
public utilities, services, and other public requirements, and conservatio
significant natural and man-made resources within the County.
1.6.2 Tenure and Membership Expectations
(A) The tenure of office shall be three years. Members are eligible for reappointment for a
second consecutive full term. After two consecutive terms a member shall be ineligible
for reappointment for one year after the expiration of the previous terms.
(B) Appointments shall be made so that one-third of the terms expire in March of each
calendar year.
(C) Appointments made to fill vacancies shall be for the unexpired term and shall not be
counted as a term in determining eligibility for reappointment.
(D) A member whose term has expired shall continue to serve on the Board until his/her
respective successor has been appointed.
(E) Attendance at the regular meetings of the Board and at quarterly public hearings' shall
be considered a prerequisite for maintenance of membership on the Planning Board.
The Board of County Commissioners may declare a vacancy on the Planning Board
because of a member's non-attendance, in accordance with the Planning Board Rules of
Procedure.
(F) Absence due to sickness, death of an immediate family member or similar reason shall
be considered approved absences and shall not affect the member's status. In the event
of long illness or other cause for prolonged absence, the member shall be replaced.
(G) The Board of County Commissioners may by resolution establish rules related to tenure
and membership expectations. If the terms of such resolution, or policy created thereby,
conflict with the terms of this section 1.6.1 or 1.6.2 the terms of the resolution or policy
shall control.
71:6::3
As provided for in 1 - f the General Statutes of arolina, as amended, the Planning
Board shall have the following gene ers uties:
(A) Make studies of Oran my and surroun i
(B) Determ' jectives to be sought in the development of Orange
Propose and recommend plans for achieving these objectives;
1 Proposed addition to clarify that Planning Board members are expected to attend the quarterly public hearings.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 1-11
14
ARTICLE 2: PROCEDURES
SECTION21- • ALMORITY - SUMMARY
The following table provides a brief synopsis of the review and decision-making processes for
development applications.
• r
ZONING/DEVELOPMENT EROSION DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY BOARD O
REVIEw RELATED PLANNING CONTROL
PROCEDURES DIRECTOR OFFICER COMMITTEE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
DA
Zoning Compliance R and DM R R
Permits
Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Control R and DM
Permits
Stormwater Management R and DM
Plans
UDO Text Amendments R R R [1] DM and
PH
Zoning Atlas R R R [1] DM and
Amendments PH
DM and
Special Use Permits R R R D Class d B H Class]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] DM and
Amendments PH
Subdivision Related
Procedures
Exempt R and DM
Minor R and DM R R
Major R R R R and DM R and
[21 DM
Conditional Use R R R R [1] R, DM,
and PH
Appeal
NOTES
[1]
a P611910G heaFiRg. The PlaRRORg gGard will have the item refiawed tA- itand Shall have 61p tG 9Q dayS tG
the
,,o.,+,,., appli atilt. The Planning Board reviews applications and makes a recommendation prior
to the public hearing held by the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners
may choose to refer an application back to the Planning Board at the conclusion of 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
Article 2: Procedures 15
Section 2.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(A) the Board of County Commissioners denies an application, or t cation is
with n subsequent to notice of the public heari on, no application for the same
or similar a ment, affecting the operty or a portion of it, may be submitted for
a period of one ye . year
period b i e date enial or Comprehensive Submission of
drawal, as appropriate. Plan Application
2.2.9 Manner of Review Amendment
Applications requiring a public hearing shall be Classification -
reviewed using either a legislative process or a Text or Land Use Plan (Map)
quasi-judicial process as follows:
(A) Comprehensive Plan amendments —
legislative
(B) Special Use Permits—quasi-judicial Text Land Use Plan
(C) Zoning Atlas and Unified Development (Map)
Ordinance amendments— legislative
(D) Conditional Use District (CUD)— rezoning
portion is legislative; Special Use Permit
portion is quasi-judicial See proposed revised
(E) Conditional Zoning District (CZD) - flow Chart on next page
legislative
SECTION COMPREHENSIVE
AMENDMENTS
2.3.1 Review and Approval Flow Chart Amendment, Public Hearing in Feb. [1];
The review and approval process for If Secondary
Comprehensive Plan Amendments is shown in the Amendment, Public
procedure's flowchart.
Hearing in Feb,May,
2.3.2 Generally Aug, or Nov
(A) The Comprehensive Plan shall be so
prepared that all or individual elements
and parts thereof may be adopted and/or taff Recommendation
amended by the Board of Commissioners. Planning Board
(B) For the purpose of establishing and
maintaining sound, stable, and desirable
development within Orange County, the
Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof Staff and PB Recommendation
shall not be amended except as follows: to BOCC
(1) Because of changed or changing
conditions in a particular area or
areas of the County; BOCC Decision
(2) To correct an error or omission; or
[1] If principal amendment is County initiated,it
may be scheduled by BOCC at any quarterly Public
Hearing.
z Proposed to be added to provide clarity on which type of review process is used for the various types of
applications that require a public hearing. Staff is not suggesting adding the specifics of each process in the UDO
as specifics may change as case law is made or State statutes are modified.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-4
16
Comprehensive Application
Proposed flow chart for Section 2.3.1 Plan Submittal
Amendments
Text Future Land Use Map
Post Sign /Mail Notice for
Planning Board Meeting
and Public Hearing
Development Advisory
Committee Meeting
Staff Recommendation to
Planning Board
Planning Board Review
and Recommendation
Publish Legal Ad
(Both Amendment Types)
Staff and Planning Board
Recommendation to BOCC
Quarterly Public
Hearing
BOCC Decision
Note: This chart is meant as a graphical
representation of the UDO text;the text shall take
priority in any conflict or ambiguity.
Article 2: Procedures 17
Section 2.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(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
(A) An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof may be initiated by:
(1) The Board of Commissioners on its own motion;
(2) The Planning Board;
(3) Application, by any person or agency, which accurately and completely sets forth
the reason(s) for the proposed amendment as prescribed in Section 2.3.2(B); or
(4) The Planning Director.3
(B) Once initiated, all amendments shall be referred to the Planning Board.4
2.0.4;lassifisatien of A mendments5
°cennnrlarv° amenrlmenfc
(A) Drinrinal Amendments Inah-dip
0) rlitinnls tn nr mnrlifinafinn f� r�S GbjGG�68 nri 6SGFc4o a�
(2) nrle" "r"o��aditiAvrr StiRg oz�GtiVity RAGI°cIS wrhirhr
(3) PFG PPnPSalSfnr n 4ctA-AdiRg Plan area roc 4) GXOStiRg areas that
(B) Cern-nd-ary Amendments Inal,ide
(2)The pyaRSOGn nGSigniaterl Plan area y.ghere the arlrlitinnal area 06 GeRtig i9n616
(3)A.nnrrentinn of an error nr nmiSSOO F
/A�����enc } anfi ial nr dGri Pfi�ie maferial
3(1)through (4)are currently(A)through (D). This section has been reformatted on the advice of the Staff
Attorney.
4 These proposed revisions here and on subsequent pages incorporate the discussion the Planning Board had in
October, November,and December 2014 and which the BOCC discussed on May 12,2015. The cadence of the
review process would be revised to have the Planning Board make its recommendation prior to the public hearing.
Notices would be mailed to nearby property owners and a sign(s)would be posted;this revision will notify nearby
property owners of potential changes much earlier in the process. Although the Planning Board meeting would
not be an official public hearing,the public could address the Planning Board (the existing requirement for written
comments only is not proposed to continue in this revised process)and the Planning Board can take all public
comments into consideration when making its recommendation.
5 Staff proposes that this entire section (2.3.4) be deleted because it is relevant only in conjunction with Section
2.3.7. Rather than limiting"principal"amendments to being heard "generally"only once per year(as Section 2.3.7
does),staff proposes that any Comprehensive Plan amendment could be heard at any of the quarterly public
hearings. Deletion of this subsection will cause the renumbering of subsequent subsections in Section 2.3.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-5
Article 2: Procedures 18
Section 2.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments
2.3.5 Public Hearing Required
A public hearing shall be held before adoption of any proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The Board of County Commissioners and th8 RIaRRiRg Bea F l6 shall hear applications and receive
public comment for proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments in a Quarterly Public Hearing.
2.3.6 Notice Requirements for Planning Board Meetings and Public Hearings
(A) The Planning Director shall provide notice of Planning Board meetings at which the
Planning Board is to review and make a recommendation on Future Land Use Map
amendments and Quarterly Public Hearings at which an amendment to the Future Land
Use Map is to be reviewed. Notifications of proposed Future Land Use Map
amendments shall occur as follows:
(1) Notice of the Planning Board meeting and public hearing shall be posted on the
affected parcel or on an adjacent public right of way a minimum of ten days prior
to the Planning Board meeting. Said notice shall contain the time and location of
both the Planning Board meeting and public hearing.'
(a) When multiple parcels are affected, a posting on each individual parcel is
not required, but sufficient notices shall be posted to provide reasonable
notice to interested persons.
(2) Written notice of the Planning Board meeting and 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 or within X89 one thousand feet of the affected
parcel(s). Said notice shall be mailed at least 15 days prior to the date of the
Planning Board meeting and shall include the times and locations of both the
Planning Board meeting and public hearing. The outside of the envelope or
postcard shall be marked "Notice of Public Hearing."9
(B) The Planning Director shall provide public notice for any Comprehensive Plan
amendment to be heard at a Quarterly Public Hearing. The notice shall include the time
and location of the public hearing. e
(C) For all proposed amendments, Ngtase 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."
(1) 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.
6 Since a quorum of Planning Board members will no longer be necessary to hold a public hearing,the public
hearing would no longer be considered a joint hearing.
'The Planning Board has stated that it would like the public to have notice of its meetings when it is considering
amendments so the public can attend the meetings and provide comments if desired. Staff is proposing that the
notice for the Planning Board meeting and the later quarterly public hearing be combined into one notice so that
two notices are not required to be mailed for Comprehensive Plan amendments.
8 As a result of comments made at the September 8,2015 public hearing,the notification boundary is proposed to
be expanded from 500 feet to 1,000 feet.
9 At its October 7t"meeting,the Planning Board indicated that since the notices would be mailed via first class mail,
that the outside of the envelope should indicate the contents of the envelope to better ensure that the envelope
would not be tossed out unopened by the recipient. Since some notices are mailed via postcards, staff has
suggested language that is consistent with the two types of mailings that can occur.
10 Proposed addition made by the Staff Attorney.
11 This language is currently(A) but has been automatically re-numbered due to a new(A)and (B) being proposed
for addition.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-6
Article 2: Procedures 19
Section 2.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(2) The minimum published size of the notice shall be 25 square inches.12
(D) In the nose pf amendments to the I and 1-168- Dlan (Map), Oho Phoning rlireptor shall
phaRgG or nn an adiapent P6 11910G street or highway right of Way not less than ten days
0) VVhGR mi iltiple panels are innli irlerl ieiithin a propoSGd l=A_1n�l1l968- Dlan (map)
S.
(E) In the pase pf amendments to the I and I Ise Dlan (Map), WFmtten Aetipe pf the pi ihlin
hearing !shall be sent by first-Glass mail to all property owners, as lis;ted_ the Orange
WAG] 1-1168 PIaR aMGRdFRGRt) and all PF()PGFtY GWRGHS Q-.p v.githmA 5-0-0- f4A-R-t. R-aid. A.AtMAR shall
he moiled at leoat 14 dove but not more thou 7!5 dove prior to the dote of the pi bk
he13
2.3.7 Consideration of Amendments 14
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D) A proposed amendment may be considered in conjunction with a rezoning request for the
same property if the r GStS aFG plianpe with a adopted small a plap 15
(E)
16
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.
12(C)(1)and (C)(2)are currently(C)and (D) but have been recommended as subparagraphs by the Staff Attorney.
13(D)and (E) have been rewritten and combined into(A)above.
14 Staff proposes this section be modified, in conjunction with the proposed deletion of Section 2.3.4,so that any
proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan can be heard at any of the quarterly public hearings, rather than
limiting"principal"amendments to "generally" only the February QPH. (It is noteworthy that principal
amendments in recent years have been heard at hearings that were not in February,such as the land use
classification change in the Efland-Mebane corridor where Morinaga's factory is now located,which was heard at a
May QPH).
15 The Staff Attorney has recommended deletion of this provision due to concerns over who determines
compliance with a small area plan and how compliance is determined.
16 The Staff Attorney has recommended deletion of this provision because of the modification made in (D). If the
modification in (D) is not made,the language of(E)should be modified because of the concern that a restriction on
a rezoning application has been placed in the Comprehensive Plan amendment section.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-7
Article 2: Procedures 20
Section 2.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(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 I and I Ise Plan (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;
(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)
(B)
rlirenf the Planning Beard shall make its rennmmenrlafinn Yniifhin three rani ilarly
A.R. eXtA.A.nn
✓xvrr.
(``) If the Planning BeaFd fails fn make a rennmmenrlafinn y.fifhin the time allnfferl in
(D) Amendments initiated- by QFaRge GG infy shall nnf he si 1bienf fn time limitations other
(E)
if it is for the Pi irPnse of Presenting infnrmafinn also si ihmitted- in wFiting
(A) The Planning Board shall allow public comments at its meeting and those comments
shall be taken into consideration by the Planning Board in making its recommendation.
(B) The Planning Board shall review and comment on applications and shall make one of the
following recommendations prior to the quarterly public hearing:
17 The name of this map was changed in the Comprehensive Plan in 2012 and should be updated here.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-8
Article 2: Procedures 21
Section 2.4: Zoning Compliance Permits
(1) Recommend approval,
(2) Recommend denial,
(3) Recommend approval but with specified changes.
(4) Recommend the Planning Board be given extended time to consider the matter.
(C) Should the Planning Board fail to make a recommendation prior to the quarterly public
hearing, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
without a Planning Board recommendation.18
2.3.11 Action by Board of County Commissioners
(A) The Board of County Commissioners shall
A-monrlmon4 „n+il hold a public hearing after the Planning Board either makes its
recommendation or takes no action on the application aS PFGSGFibGd P P thiorrtrs-RRAtmeeA within
30 days of its referral.19
(B)
by Oho Dlonninry BGaF l in making i4c ronnmmonrlo4inn
(C)
4hom by F@891 �4inn i oi4hor 1nnh2RgG l nr y.fith mndifino4innc
(B) After the Board of County Commissioners closes the public hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners shall do one of the following:
(1) defer a decision to a later Board of County Commissioners meeting date, or
(2) make a decision.
(C) In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider comments made at the
public hearing, the Planning Board's recommendation, and the Planning Director's
recommendation.
SECTION 2.4: ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMITS
2.4.1 Applicability
(A) As required by this nce, a Zoning Complianc mit must be issued before any
new site development, builds , ructure, or cular use area may be erected,
constructed or used.
(B) Submittal and approval of e plan (see Sectio is required for issuance of a
Zoning Complianc rmit except for:
(1) . gle-family detached dwellings and duplexes, and access ructures to
those residential uses shall require a plot plan as detailed within Se .4.3 of
this Ordinance.
18 This paragraph is a slight modification from existing paragraph (C),which is proposed to be deleted. It addresses
what happens in the event the Planning Board fails to make a recommendation (namely,that the process moves
forward without a Planning Board recommendation).
19 The Staff Attorney has suggested this paragraph be rephrased to make it affirmative.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-9
Article 2: Procedures 22
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
(3) Accessory r eet or greater in height,
ee ing requirements of Section
SECTION
2.7.1 Generally
(A) Any use or development designated by applicable zoning district regulations contained
within Article 5 as a special use, or as
allowed only pursuant to a special use Application
permit (either Class A or Class B), may be Special Use Submittal
established in that district only after the use Permit
or development is authorized by a validly
issued and recorded special use permit.
Lta App lication Review and
(B) This section sets forth required review and mal Recommendation
approval procedures for submittal, review,
and approval of applications for special use See pr d
permit.
(C) A special use permit authorizes its holder to f [, ar �[ �(�
WC ass S'S a Glas�i�S�Pe
use or develop a particular parcel of land in
a particular way, as specified by the terms scheduled for scheduled for
and conditions of the special use permit. review by review by
(D) A special use permit imposes on its holder Adjustment at Planning Board
the responsibility of ensuring that the a public at a quarterly
authorized use or development continues to hearing public hearing
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 Staff advertises
of the additional responsibility of obtaining a meeting (newspaper
building permit or any other permit or ad, property posting,
approval required by any other applicable adjacent property
law. letters)
2.7.2 Review and Approval Flow Chart
The review and approval process for Special Use Joint public
Board of hearing held in
Permits is shown in the procedure's flowchart.
Adjustment a quasi-
2.7.3 Application Requirements holds public judicial format
hearing in a to review
(A) Applications for a Special Use shall be quasi-judicial application
submitted on forms provided by the Planning format and
Department in accordance with Section 2.2 renders a
of this Ordinance. decision on
Application
(B) Applications shall include: application forwarded to
(1) A full and accurate description of the Planning Board for
proposed use, including its location, review and
appearance, and operational recommendation
characteristics.
(2) The name(s) and address(es)of the Planning Board recommendation
owner(s)of the property involved. sent to County Commissioners for
decision
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-19
23
Special Use Application
Proposed flow chart for Permit Submittal
Section 2.7.1
Staff Review/
Analysis Begins
Class B SUP: Schedule Class A SUP: Schedule NIM,
NIM, DAC & Board of DAC, Planning Board meeting &
Adjustment quasi- BOCC quasi-judicial hearing
judicial hearing
Post Sign & Mail Notice for
Post Sign & Mail Neighborhood Information
Notice for Meeting (NIM) & Planning
Neighborhood Board meeting
Information
Meeting (NIM)
Neighborhood
Information Meeting
Neighborhood
Information
Meeting Development
Advisory
Committee (DAC)
Meeting
Development
Advisory
Committee (DAC)
Meeting Planning Board for
review and
recommendation
Post
Sign & Mail Notice for
Public Hearing Post
Sign & Mail Notice for
Public Hearing
BOA holds quasi-
judicial hearing BOCC holds quasi-
judicial hearing at
quarterly public hearing
Board of
Adjustment
decision BOCC decision
Note: This chart is meant as a graphical representation of the
UDO text; the text shall take priority in any conflict or ambiguity.
Article 2: Procedures 24
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
(3) Relevant information needed to show compliance with the general and specific
standards governing the Special Use (See Articles 5 and 6).
(4) For Class A Special Uses 26 copies of the site plan, and for Class B Special
Uses 10 copies of the site plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina land
surveyor, landscape architect, architect, or engineer, which shall contain the
information listed in Section 2.5.
(5) If the application involves a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, 26 copies of the Plat
prepared in accordance with Section 7.14 shall be provided.
(6) A list of all parcels located within 500 feet of the subject parcel and the name and
address of each property owner, as currently listed in the Orange County tax
records.
(7) Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development.
(8) For Class A Special Uses 26 copies and for Class B Special Uses 10 copies of
the Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact Statement, if
required by Section 6.16.
(9) Method of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated
with the permitted activity, which shall be by some method other than open
burning.
(10) Statement from the applicant indicating the anticipated development schedule for
the build-out of the project.
(11) Statement from the applicant in justification of any request for vesting for a period
of more than two years (five years maximum).
2.7.4 Staff Review
(A) The Planning Director shall cause an analysis to be made of the application by qualified
representatives of the County and other agencies or officials as appropriate.
(1) Applications for agricultural support enterprise uses located within the Rural
Buffer land use classification, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the
adopted Comprehensive Plan, shall be forwarded to the County's Agricultural
Preservation Board for review and comment.
(a) The Agricultural Preservation Board shall have 30 calendar days to
provide comments. If comments are not received within this timeframe,
the application review process shall not be delayed.
(b) For purposes of this subsection, agricultural support enterprise uses
shall be defined as those permitted in the ASE-CZ zoning district, as
detailed within Section 5.2.3 of this Ordinance.
(B) The Planning Director shall submit the analysis to the Board of County Commissioners
and the Planning Board, in the case of Class A Special Uses, or the Board of Adjustment,
in the case of Class B Special Uses.
(C) The appropriate Board reviewing the application shall receive and enter the analysis into
evidence during the public hearing. The analysis shall be subject to examination by all
interested parties and the Planning Director shall be subject to cross-examination
regarding the analysis.
(D) zo
20 The Staff Attorney has suggested this language be removed. In instances where Planning staff is asked for an
opinion or asked questions about the findings of fact, having this language in the UDO could be problematic
because it could create a large gray area. (Section 1.4 of the UDO allows the Planning Director to designate other
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-20
Article 2: Procedures 25
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
2.7.5 Neighborhood Information Meeting
(A) Before a Public Hearing may be held for a Special Use the applicant is required to
schedule 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
shall mail certified notices of the meeting date and time to each property owner within
aad one thousand 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 45 days prior to the date of the Public Hearing.
(F) Neighborhood information meetings for telecommunication facilities shall be held in
accordance with the provisions of Section 5.10.8 (B) (2).
2.7.6 Notice Requirements for Class A Special Use Permits
(A) The Planning Director shall give notice of the date, time and place of the Planning Board
meeting at which the Planning Board is scheduled to review a Special Use Permit
application.
(1) Written notice shall be sent by first class mail to all adjacent property owners not
less than ten days before the Planning Board meeting date. Adjacent property
owners are those whose property lies within five-h--Pdmd•one thousand feet of
the affected property and whose names and addresses are currently listed in the
Orange County tax records. The outside of the envelope or postcard shall be
marked "Notice of Planning Board Meeting."
(2) The Planning Director shall post on the affected property a notice of the Planning
Board meeting at least ten days prior to the date of said meeting.
(3) Notices may be combined with notice of the Neighborhood Information Meeting
required in Section 2.7.5.
(B) The Planning Director shall give p4b4G notice of the date, time and place of the public
hearing to be held to receive ^^ tS, evidence in the form of22 testimony and exhibits
pertaining to the application for a Special Use.
staff members to administer, interpret,and enforce the UDO;the term Planning Director is used throughout the
UDO for consistency).
21 As a result of comments made at the September 8,2015 public hearing,the notification boundary is proposed to
be expanded from 500 feet to 1,000 feet.
22 The Staff Attorney has suggested this language modification since SUP applications are quasi-judicial in nature
and require testimony rather than comments.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-21
Article 2: Procedures 26
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
(1) Written notice shall be sent by artified first class2 mail to all adjacent property
^
owners n + loco thou 15 days at least ten days but not more than 25 days 4
before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose property lies
within feet of the affected property and whose names
and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records. The
outside of the envelope or postcard shall be marked "Notice of Public Hearing."
(2) The Planning Director shall post on the affected property a notice of the public
hearing at least ten days but not more than 25 days 5 prior to the date of said
hearing.26
(3) IV C1 t� t=111% .e public hearing shall be publishedA j,, a ,icvvapapui UT
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.27
2.7.7 Notice Requirements for Class B Special Use Permits
Notice Requirements for Class B Special Use Permits shall follow the procedures in Section
2.12.6.
2.7.8 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:
23 State statutes do not require mailing via certified mail. Because of the proposed notification distance increase
(from 500 feet to 1,000 feet),staff is suggesting that notices be mailed via first class mail in order to keep costs and
necessary staff time lower.
24 Language modification is being suggested to be consistent with Statutes and to ensure the outer limit of 25 days
is not inadvertently missed. Because notices for the Neighborhood Information Meeting(and Planning Board
meeting, if these proposed text amendments are adopted) are sent more than a month before this notice for the
public hearing, notification to the public regarding proposed projects is occurring much sooner in the review
process than in the past.
25 Language modification is being suggested to be consistent with Statutes and to ensure the outer limit of 25 days
is not inadvertently missed.
26 C(1)and (2)are currently(C)and (D)in the adopted UDO but have been indented one level to flow better in this
subsection.
27 This language is currently(B) in the adopted UDO. The Staff Attorney had suggested that published newspaper
advertisements for quarterly public hearings omit SUP applications since the general public does not have standing
in such matters and cannot participate. At the September 8,2015 public hearing,comments were received to
continue to publish SUP notices in the legal advertisements but to add additional language to the legal ad if
necessary for legal sufficiency reasons. Therefore,the language has been restored and depicted in orange colored
text and has been indented one level to flow better within the subsection. Planning and Attorney staff will work
together to ensure future legal ads are modified as necessary.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-22
Article 2: Procedures 27
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
(1) Barring the presentation of obvious hearsay evidence,
(2) Barring the presentation of non-expert opinion,
(3) Interrupting digressions into immaterial testimony,
(4) Interrupting repetitive testimony,
(5) Reasonably limiting the time allotted each witness or cross-examination,
(6) Providing for the selection of spokespersons to represent groups of persons with
common interests,
(7) Interrupting personal attacks, and/or
(8) Ordering an end to disorderly conduct.
(E) Where the Board finds compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing
the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards,
the application must be approved unless the Board shall also find, in some specific
manner, that:
(1) the use will not maintain or promote the public health, safety and general
welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the
plan as submitted.
(F) Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote
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 proposed
use does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use.
2.7.9 Review and Decision
(A) For Class A Special Use"Permits, the following shall apply:
(1) All applications shall be referred to the Planning Board for review and
recommendation after the Neighborhood Information Meeting but prior to the
public hearing.28
(2) The Planning Board shall make a recommendation and proposed findings of fact
on the application, including the findings required in Section 5.3.2 of this
Ordinance 29. The Planning Board's action on an application shall be one of the
following:
(a) Recommend approval based on proposed findings of fact,
(b) Recommend denial based on proposed findings of fact,
(c) Recommend approval based on proposed findings of fact but with
specified conditions.
(3) Should the Planning Board fail to make a recommendation prior to the public
hearing, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendation.
28 The Staff Attorney has advised that a greater level of legal sufficiency is reached if the Planning Board reviews
applications and makes its recommendation prior to the quasi-judicial hearing than during or after the hearing.
29 The Planning Board has stated it wants to make a recommendation on the findings required in Section 5.3.2
(e.g., use will promote public health,safety,and welfare; use will maintain or enhance value of contiguous
property; location and character of use is in harmony with the area). Staff notes that an applicant cannot be
required to divulge the evidence they intend to present at the evidentiary hearing(quasi-judicial hearing). In the
event an applicant chooses to withhold information until the quasi-judicial hearing,there may be cases where the
Planning Board will not have access to all information at its meeting. In such cases,the Planning Board may note
deficiencies in information in its recommendation.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-23
Article 2: Procedures 28
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
(4) The Board of County Commissioners and Planning Rnarrt30 shall review the
application during a regularly sGheduled publiG hearing a meeting designated as
a Quarterly Public Hearing.
(5) All evidence shall be submitted during the public hearing. If additional evidence
is requested by the Board of County Commissioners during a hearing which must
be submitted at a later date, the hearing shall be continued to a date/time certain
in order to receive the additional evidence.31
(7�)The RGAFd of G9 into GE)FAMORS09ARPS may rlirent the DlanniRg Beard to previde a
not sn rlirent fho DlanniRg Rnard- shall make ifs rennmmenrlatinn y.f0th0n three
(8) if the Planning Reard fails, to make o rennmmenrlofinn )Adthin the time olk)ttA l
(9) After closing the
public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall
do one of the following:
(a) ApprGva-�
(b) Ap preyal;niith nnnrlitinn8; Gr
(c) DRAORI
(a) Defer action to a later Board of County Commissioners meeting date, or
(b) Act upon the application.
(10) Board of County Commissioner action on the application shall include making
appropriate findings of fact pursuant to Section 2.7.11, stating whether the board
concludes each of the applicable standards have been met and one of the
following:
(a) Approval;
(b) Approval but with specified conditions as provided in Section 2.7.12; or
(c) Denial.
(B) For Class B Special Use Permits, the following shall apply:
(1) The Board of Adjustment shall review the application during a regularly
scheduled public hearing.
(2) The Board of Adjustment shall conduct the hearing in accordance within the
provisions detailed in this Section as well as those contained within Section 2.12.
(3) After mss#closing the public hearing, the Board of Adjustment shall take
action upon the application. This action shall ba include making appropriate
findings of fact pursuant to Section 2.7.11, stating whether the board concludes
each of the applicable standards have been met and one of the following:
(a) Approval;
30 While the Planning Board is expected to attend the public hearing,a quorum of Planning Board members will
not be necessary in order to conduct the hearing.
31 In order to meet legal requirements for quasi-judicial proceedings,staff is suggesting this proposed language.
Evidence would no longer be allowed to be submitted in writing after the quasi-judicial hearing. Instead,
additional evidence would have to be presented by experts at a subsequent hearing(which does not necessarily
have to be a quarterly public hearing date).
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-24
Article 2: Procedures 29
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
(b) Approval but with specified conditions as provided in Section 2.7.12; or
(c) Denial.
X7.10 Standards of Evaluation
\Required specific standards shall be used in deciding on an application:
project meets all applicable design standards and other requirements of this
ance.
development can reasonably be completed within the vesting period req sted, if
re vesting in excess of two years is requested, the project is locate n an area
e current issues under study do not involve potential amendment to the
ehensive Plan and/or this Ordinance.
2. ndin
(A) A resolution\motiont ion to approve the applicati on must includ the findings of fact and
conclusions that support the decision. Any propose conditions of approval must
also be inclthe resolution or motion to approve th application.
(B) A resolution i to deny the application must st findings of fact and conclusions
of law that sthe ecision.
(C) If a resolutition t approve the applicatio fails, the application is deemed
denied. Thmbers v ing against the res ution or motion must state which of the
conclusions they coul of reach as w as findings of fact on which their inability
to reach the sions is bas 2.7.12 Conditions of App
(A) The Board of County Commissioner o the Board of Adjustment, as appropriate, may
impose such reasonable condition upon pproval of a Special Use as will afford
protection of the public health, s ety and neral welfare, ensure that substantial justice
is done, and equitable treatme provided.
(B) Conditions shall run with th and and use, and all be binding on the original
applicant(s) as well as aII uccessors, assigns an eirs.
(C) The Special Use Perm' shall include a statement tha if any condition of a Special Use
Permit shall be held ' valid or void, then the permit itse shall be void and of no effect.
(D) It shall be stated i the Special Use Permit that the Permit hall automatically expire
within 12 month of the date of approval if the use has not c menced or construction
has not com nced or proceeded unless a timely application r extension of this time
limit is appr ed by the Board of County Commissioners as prov ed in Section 2.7.13.
2.7.13 Notification of bard Action
/(B) The nning Director shall send a notice of the relevant Board's action the application
ied mail to the applicant. A copy of the decision shall be filed in th Planning
ent within five business days of the relevant Board's action.
nning Director, in the case of approval or approval with conditions, shall is ue the ary permit in accord with the Board's action.
nning Director, but not a designee, shall certify that the Special Use Permit wit osed conditions is as approved by the Board of County Commissioners or Board tment, as appropriate, with a report provided to the County Manager.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-25
Article 2: Procedures 30
Section 2.8: Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments
SECTION • Zoning Atlas and
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
UDO Amendments
2.8.1 Review and Approval Flow Chart
Application
The review and approval process for a Zoning Atlas and Unified Submittal
Development Ordinance Amendment is shown in the
procedure's flowchart. See proposed revised
2.8.2 Amendment Initiation flow chart on next page
(A) An amendment to this Ordinance or the Zoning Atlas ana Hnaiysi�
may be initiated by:
(1) The Board of County Commissioners on its Schedule/Advertise
motion;
Public Hearing and
(2) The Planning Board; Mail Required
(3) Application, by any person or agency, or Notifications
(4) The Planning Director.
(B) If a request for consideration of an amendment proposal Hold Public Hearing and Receive Public
is submitted directly to the Board of County Comments
Commissioners, said Board may decline to consider the
request or may refer the amendment proposal to the
Planning Director for preparation of an amendment
application. Planning Board Review
(C) Once initiated, all amendments shall be referred to the and Recommendation
Planning Board.32
2.8.3 Contents of Application Decision by the BOCC
Applications shall contain the following:
(A) For amendments to the Zoning Atlas:
(1) A map at a legible scale showing the land which would be covered by the
proposed amendment, and
(2) A legal description of the land.
(B) For amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance text:
(1) A copy of the existing text provision(s)which the applicant proposes for
amendment, and
(2) A written statement which describes in detail the changes the applicant proposes
to make.
(C) The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text that
would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error
32 These proposed revisions here and on subsequent pages incorporate the discussion the Planning Board had in
October, November,and December 2014 and which the BOCC discussed on May 12, 2015. The cadence of the
review process would be revised to have the Planning Board make its recommendation prior to the public hearing.
Notices would be mailed to nearby property owners and a sign(s)would be posted;this revision will notify nearby
property owners of potential changes much earlier in the process. Although the Planning Board meeting would
not be an official public hearing,the public could address the Planning Board (the existing requirement for written
comments only is not proposed to continue in this revised process)and the Planning Board can take all public
comments into consideration when making its recommendation.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-28
31
Zoning Atlas and Application
Proposed flow chart for Section 2.8.3 UDO Amendments Submittal
Zoning Atlas: Zoning Atlas: Text Amendments
Conditional General Use
Districts Zoning Districts
Post Sign /Mail Notice for
Neighborhood Info. Meeting
(NIM) and Planning Board
Meeting
Post Sign /Mail Notice
Neighborhood for Planning Board
Information Meeting Meeting
Development Advisory
Committee Meeting
Staff Recommendation to
Planning Board
Planning Board Review
and Recommendation
Atlas Amendments: Text
Publish Legal Ad Amendments:
Post Sign Publish Legal Ad
Mail Notice
Staff and PB Recommendation
to BOCC
Quarterly Public Hearing
BOCC Decision
Note: This chart is meant as a graphical representation of the
UDO text;the text shall take priority in any conflict or ambiguity.
Article 2: Procedures 32
Section 2.8: Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments
in the Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development text and detailed reasons how the
proposed amendment will correct the alleged error;
(D) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which
makes the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text
amendment reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety and general
welfare;
(E) The manner in which the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance
text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan
or part thereof; and
(F) A traffic impact study as required by Section 6.17.
(G) For amendments to the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District, pertaining to a Letter
of Map Amendment:
(1) An elevation certificate with either an MT-1, MT-2, or MT-EZ(forms available
through FEMA), or
(2) A"No-Impact" analysis for a Letter of Map Revision.
(H) All other circumstances, factors and reasons that the applicant offers in support of the
proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text amendment.
2.8.4 Applications for Amendment—Joint Planning Area
Applications for amendments to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance and Zoning
Atlas for the purpose of incorporating the provisions of the Chapel Hill Land Development
Ordinance (and Zoning Maps) and/or the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance (and Zoning Maps)shall
be processed as specified herein and as specified in the Joint Planning Agreement adopted
November 2, 1987, and as amended from time to time.
Any text amendments adopted by Orange County shall be adopted by reference as though fully
set forth herein. Any map amendments adopted by Orange County shall be officially denoted on
the County Zoning Atlas. Where there is inconsistency between the amendment procedures
contained herein and those contained in the Joint Planning Agreement, the provisions of the Joint
Planning Agreement shall apply.
2.8.5 Review,Analysis and Recommendation
(A) 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.
(B) Applications for agricultural support enterprise uses located within the Rural Buffer land
use classification, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan, shall be forwarded to the County's Agricultural Preservation Board
for review and comment.
(1) The Agricultural Preservation Board shall have 30 calendar days to provide
comments. If comments are not received within this timeframe, the application
review process shall not be delayed.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, agricultural support enterprise uses shall be
defined as those permitted in the ASE-CZ zoning district, as detailed within
Section 5.2.3 of this Ordinance.
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 D!aRR+p^
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-29
Article 2: Procedures 33
Section 2.8: Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments
d33 shall hear applications and receive public comment for Zoning Atlas amendments and/or
text amendments to this Ordinance in a Quarterly Public Hearing.
2.8.7 Notice of Requirements for Planning Board Meetings and Public Hearings
(A) The Planning Director shall provide notification of Planning Board meetings at which the
Planning Board is to review and make a recommendation on Zoning Atlas amendments.
Notifications shall be mailed and posted for the Planning Board meeting in the same
manner as for the public hearing, as detailed in (C) and (D) below. The notice shall
include the time and location of the Planning Board meeting.34 The outside of the
envelope or postcard shall be marked "Notice of Planning Board Meeting."
(B) The Planning Director shall cause notice#stile of the public hearing to review the
application and receive public comment s4a4 to be published at least twice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the county, stating the time and place of the hearing
and the substance of the proposed amendment.
(1) Said notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive 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.
3a
(C) eoase A#For amendments to the z.^Ring atlas Zoning Atlas, 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.
the o se A For amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written notice shall be sent by
certified mail to the affected property owner and all adjacent
property owners at least 15 days, but not more than 25 days, before the public hearing
date. Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently
listed in the Orange County tax records and whose property lies within
tnousana- feet of the affected property. The outside of the envelope or postcard shall be
marked "Notice of Public Hearing."
(1) If amonrtmont-s to the 7nniRg Atlas aro pmpesa J by tho G06IRty,, nntino -shall ho
-s
cant by first nla -s mail to all affont@d PFC)Porty AWAArs and to all adjaGGRt PFGPorty
AMARARS y.,mthiR 500 feet as pmvided _a.__ 38
(E) The Planning Director shall certify the mailing of all notices to the Board of County
Commissioners.
33 Since a quorum of Planning Board members will no longer be necessary to hold a public hearing,the public
hearing would no longer be considered a joint hearing.
34 The Planning Board has stated that it would like the public to have notice of its meetings when it is considering
amendments so the public can attend the meetings and provide comments if desired. This will result in two
mailed notifications/sign postings for Zoning Atlas amendments in order to meet statutory requirements for public
hearings(mailed/posted at least 10 days but not more than 25 days prior to the public hearing)
35 This paragraph has been indented one level to better reflect the cadence of ordinance structure.
36 State statutes do not require mailing via certified mail to adjacent property owners. Because of the proposed
notification distance increase (from 500 feet to 1,000 feet),staff is suggesting that notices be mailed via first class
mail in order to keep costs and necessary staff time lower.
37 As a result of comments made at the September 8,2015 public hearing,the notification boundary is proposed to
be expanded from 500 feet to 1,000 feet.
38 This paragraph is suggested for deletion because of the proposed modifications in (D)which will allow all notices
(both applicant-initiated and government-initiated)to be sent via first class mail. If the modification in (D) is not
adopted,the language in (D)(1)should not be deleted and the notification distance should be increased from 500
feet to 1,000 feet.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-30
Article 2: Procedures 34
Section 2.8: Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments
2.8.8 Planning Board Review39
(A)
(B)
d-irenf the Planning Beard droll make three rani ilarhi
cashed-i Oder- Planning Rnard- meetings
(``) If the Planning Rnard- foils fn make a rennmmend-afinn within fho time allnffed- in
(`nmmiSSinnerS n
yigifhi t a Planning Rnard- rennmmend-afinn
(D) Amend-mentr initiator- by^range GG Rty Shall nnf ho Si ibienf fn fimo IlmltatlnnS nfher
(E)
Of it iS fnr the ni irnnSe of nroSOnting infnrmatinn alSn Si OhmOffer- in writing
(A) The Planning Board shall allow public comments at its meeting and those comments
shall be taken into consideration by the Planning Board in making its recommendation.
(B) The Planning Board's action on an application shall be one of the following:
(1) Recommend approval,
(2) Recommend denial,
(3) Recommend approval but with specified changes, or
(4) Recommend the Planning Board be given extended time to consider the matter.
(C) In making its recommendation, the Planning Board shall also approve a statement
describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan or any
other officially adopted plan that is applicable, and briefly explain why the board
considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest.40
(D) Should the Planning Board fail to make a recommendation prior to the quarterly public
hearing, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
without a Planning Board recommendation.41
2.8.9 Action by Board of County Commissioners
(A) The Board of County Commissioners shall
amend-meet „nfil hold a public hearing after the Planning Board either makes its
39 These proposed revisions incorporate the discussion the Planning Board had in October, November,and
December 2014 and which the BOCC discussed on May 12,2015. The cadence of the review process would be
revised to have the Planning Board make its recommendation prior to the public hearing. Notices would be mailed
to nearby property owners and a sign(s)would be posted;this revision will notify nearby property owners of
potential changes much earlier in the process. Although the Planning Board meeting would not be an official
public hearing, interested persons could address the Planning Board (the existing requirement for written
comments only is not proposed to continue in this revised process)and the Planning Board can take all public
comments into consideration when making its recommendation.
40 Required by NCGS 160A-383.
41 This paragraph is a slight modification from existing paragraph (C),which is proposed to be deleted. It addresses
what happens in the event the Planning Board fails to make a recommendation (namely,that the process moves
forward without a Planning Board recommendation).
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-31
Article 2: Procedures 35
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
recommendation or takes no action on the application
within 30 days if its referral.
(B)
by tho DlaRROR v BOaF l in making itc ronnmmonrlo4inn
(C) After the Board of County Commissioners closes the public hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners shall do one of the following:
(1) defer a decision to a later Board of County Commissioners meeting date, or
(2) make a decision.
(D) In making its decision, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider adopted plans,
comments made at the public hearing, the Planning Board's recommendation, and the
Planning Director's recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners shall also
approve a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted
comprehensive plan or any other officially adopted plan that is applicable, and briefly
explain why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public
interest.42
2. 0 Text Revisions Pertaining to Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Provisions
The Erosion Control Officer shall review all of the North Carolina Sedimenta ' Control
Commission's revisions to the State's Model Soil Erosions and Sedimen ion Control
inance and, within 90 days of receipt of the recommended revisio , submit draft
ame ments to the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Com ' ion for its
conside 'on and comments.
(B) Within 150 da after receipt of the North Carolina Sed" entation Control Commission's
comments, Orang ounty shall formally consider posed amendments and, to the
extent deemed neces by the Board of Cou Commissioners, incorporate the
amendments into this Or nce.
(C) Text amendments to this Ordina e fo oil erosion and sedimentation control provisions
shall comply with the requirement ffect for any other text amendment.
2.8.11 Text Revisions Pertaining to Sto water Provisi s
(A) The Erosion Control ficer shall review all of the to Environmental Management
Commission's re ions to the State's Model Stormwa Ordinance and, within 90 days
of receipt of recommended revisions, submit draft ame ments to the State
Environ tal Management Commission for its consideration d comments.
(B) Wi 150 days after receipt of the State Environmental Manageme Commission's
mments, Orange County shall formally consider proposed amendme and, to the
extent deemed necessary by the Board of County Commissioners, incorpor the
amendments into this Ordinance.
(C) Text amendments to this Ordinance for stormwater provisions shall comply with the
requirements in effect for any other text amendment.
SECTION
Illitional Use District (CUD)
(A) Generally
(1) Any use per r the s shall conform to all applicable
pment regulations for the corresponding e zoning district as well
as any specific development standards outlined within this Or in
42 Required by NCGS 160A-383.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-32
There are no revisions proposed on Article 2: Procedures 36
this page - it is provided for context. Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
(2) The Board of County Commissioners, in reviewing a CUD application, may
impose such reasonable conditions upon approval of a CUD request as wil
afford protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, ensure at
substantial justice is done, and ensure equitable treatment.
(3) Only those conditions mutually agreed to by the applicant and the B rd of
County Commissioners may be imposed on a CUD application.
(4) Within the Economic Development Districts (EDDs), there are s ecific uses that
require approval of a CUD. These uses are noted on the Tab of Permitted
Uses —Economic Development Districts (Section 5.2).
(B) Applicati s
Applications establish a CUD shall be submitted to the Plan ng Director and shall be
processed in a ordance with the procedure(s)for:
(1) Zoning At s amendment (Section 2.8),
(2) Class A Spe 'a1 Use Permit (Section 2.7), and
(3) The provisions this Section.
(C) Submittal Requirements
(1) In addition to the CU pplication for , an applicant shall also submit the
following information:
(a) A site plan prepare in ac ordance with the provisions of Section 2.5
including the followin :
(i) A detailed d c i tion of the proposed use of property including
an outline the oposed operational characteristics of the
propose develop nt,
(ii) A det ed traffic surve regardless of the estimated number of
trips er day, prepared i accordance with all applicable North
C olina Department of Tr sportation (NC DOT) requirements
standards as well as Sect n 6.17 of this Ordinance,
(iii) The appropriate environmental ocument prepared in
accordance with Section 6.16; an
0 A landscape plan showing the Iocati of on-site significant
trees; proposed screening, buffers, an landscaping; and any
proposed treatment of any existing natur I features.
(b) A summary of utility services, including processing wastewater.
A schedule of construction of all elements of the propo 1; and
(d) Any other information identified during the pre-application onference
deemed essential to demonstrate the project's compliance 'th these
regulations.
(2) 26 copies of the application package required in (1) above shall be subm ed by
the applicant.
(3) The Planning Board and/or Board of County Commissioners may request
additional information in order to evaluate and properly process the application
for a CUD.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-33
Article 2: Procedures 37
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
(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 Planning Department and shall mail certified notices of the
meeting date and time to each property owner within 5,00 one thousar, 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.
(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.
(5) The Neighborhood Information Meeting shall be held a minimum of 45 days prior
to the date of the Public Hearing where the application is scheduled for review
and public comment.
( Review and Evaluation of Application
1) All CUD applications shall be reviewed and acted upon in accordance w' the
review procedures for Class A Special Use Permits (Section 2.7).
(2) The following shall be considered when evaluating an applicatio or a CUD:
(a The policies and objectives of the Orange County C prehensive Plan,
particularly in relation to the use, proposed site, d surrounding area;
(b) T olicies and objectives of any adopted all Area Plan(s) relating to
the a ; and
(c) The poten i I impacts to the surrou ing area including, but not limited,
to: traffic, sto water drainage, mpatibility of land use activities, and
land values.
(3) The Board of County Commi io rs may attach reasonable and appropriate
conditions to the location, nat nd extent of the proposed use. Such
conditions may address th ollowi
(a) The characte ' tics of the propo d use and its relationship to
surroundi property and existing d uses,
(b) The posed support facilities, such as arking, screening and buffer
ar s,
(c) The timing of the proposed development,
Architectural review and controls,
(e) The Permitted and Special Uses allowed under the exists zoning
classification, and,
(f) Other matters that the BOCC may find appropriate or the applica may
propose.
(F) Approval and Conditions
43 This section had not been proposed for modification at the September 8,2015 public hearing. However,as a
result of comments made at the public hearing,the notification boundary is proposed to be expanded from 500
feet to 1,000 feet for other types of actions so staff is suggesting the increase in this section as well so that
notification distances will be consistent.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-34
There are no revisions proposed on Article 2: Procedures 38
the page - it is provided for context. Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
\Condition' A minor change is one that will not:
(a) Alter the basic relationship of the proposed development to jacent
property,
(b) Alter the approved land uses,
(c) Increase the density or intensity of development, and/ r
(d) Decrease the off-street parking ratio or reduce the ffer yards provided
at the boundary of the site.
Zoning Di strict (CZD)
(A) Gene Ily
Only tho uses listed on the Table of Permitted Uses in ection 5.2 for a specific
Condition Zoning District and detailed in Section 3.8 o this Ordinance shall be
developed.
(B) Applications
Applications to re ne property to a CZD shall b submitted to the Planning Director and
shall be processed accordance with the proc ure(s) for:
(1) Zoning Atlas a endment (Section 2 ),
(2) Site plans (Secti 2.5) for CZDs at require a site plan, and
(3) The provisions of thi Section.
(C) Submittal Requirements
(1) In addition to the CZD ap cation form, an applicant shall also submit the
following information:
(a) A site plan pr ared i ccordance with the provisions of Section 2.5 of
this Ordinan e, except MPD-CZ applications (see (C)(2) below).
(b) A detaile description of th proposed use of property including an
outline the proposed deve pment.
(c) A det sled traffic survey, regard ss of the estimated number of trips per
day prepared in accordance with II applicable North Carolina
D artment of Transportation (NC OT) requirements or standards as
ell as Section 6.17 of this Ordinanc
(d) The appropriate Environmental Docume t prepared in accordance with
Section 6.16.
( A landscape plan showing the location of on- ite significant trees;
proposed screening, buffers, and landscaping; nd any proposed
treatment of any existing natural features.
(f) A summary of utility services, including processing f wastewater.
(g) A schedule of construction of all elements of the prop al.
(h) Any other information identified during the pre-applicatio conference
deemed essential to demonstrate the project's compliance ith these
regulations.
(2) In lieu of the requirements in (1)(a) above, an application for a Master n
Development (MPD)CZD shall include the requirements in Section 6.7. e
requirements of(1)(b)through (1)(h) above are applicable for MPD-CZ
applications.
(3) 26 copies of the application package required in (1) and (2) above shall be
submitted by the applicant.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-36
Article 2: Procedures 39
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
(4) The Planning Boar of Co �]�may request additional inform o evaluate a s the application
(D) Neighborhood Information Meeting
(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 Planning Department and shall mail certified notices of the
meeting date and time to each property owner within U1 IC; Ll IUUZICII feet of
the property for which a CZD has been requested.44
(3) The notices shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the
proposed Neighborhood Information Meeting.
(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.
(5) 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
e review, processing, and evaluation of a CZD application is a legislative p cess
su , ct to judicial review using the same procedures and standards of rev' that apply
to gen I use district zoning decisions.
(F) Approval a Conditions
(1) The Boa of County Commissioners shall take acti on the application to
rezone the p erty in accordance with the proc ures outlined within Section
2.8.
(2) The applicant or the unty may
e a reco end that reasonable and appropriate
conditions be attached t ppro of the application
(3) Conditions and site-specific s ards shall be limited to those that address the
conformance of the develo en t County ordinances, the adopted
Comprehensive Plan, or ny other re vant plans that address the impacts
reasonably expecte be generated b e proposed development. Any such
conditions may a ress:
(a) The ompatibility of the proposed develo ent with surrounding
perty,
(b) Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and ac s points, parking
areas and driveways, pedestrian and vehicular circu 'on systems,
screening and buffer areas, the timing of development, s et and right-
of-way improvements, storm water drainage, the provision o pen
space, etc), and/or
(c) All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner m
propose.
44 This section had not been proposed for modification at the September 8,2015 public hearing. However,as a
result of comments made at the public hearing,the notification boundary is proposed to be expanded from 500
feet to 1,000 feet for other types of actions so staff is suggesting the increase in this section as well so that
notification distances will be consistent. Mailing notices via first class mail rather than via certified mail is being
suggested in order to keep costs lower.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-37
Article 2: Procedures 40
Section 2.12: Board of Adjustment
2.1 . Review Procedures
(A Applications for an appeal of an interpretation shall be reviewed and acted u by the
and of Adjustment in accordance with the procedures contained in Se n 2.12 of this
Or nce.
(B) The condu f the hearing shall be consistent with the provis" s of Section 2.12 of this
Ordinance.
(C) The Planning Director all complete an assessm of the application and provide a
recommendation on the di sition of the app tion. The assessment shall include all
relevant facts utilized in renders the dl ed decision and the rationale for the
interpretation made by the Planning " ector.
(D) The assessment shall be intro ced at the aring and become part of the record.
(E) Upon hearing all evide associated with the ap i ation, the Board of Adjustment shall
close the hearing render a decision on the matter affirm, modify, or reverse the
decision of the anning Director.
2.11.5 Findings of t
The B rd of Adjustment shall provide a detailed rationale for its decision in the for f an order
t irm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Planning Director. This order shall prove the
necessary justification for the Board's action based on the testimony and evidence entered i
the record during the hearing.
2.11.6 Notice Requirements
Notice requirements shall follow Section 2.12.6(A). Other subsections of Section �?C 2.12.6 45
are not applicable to applications for an appeal of an interpretation.
SECTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
1 General Provisions
The Board shall act on all applications before it.
(B) a Board shall act on any appeal of a Stop Work Order issZledat ctor
at i ext regularly scheduled meeting or at a special meetie.
2.12.2 Quasi-Judicial Pro dings
(A) The Board of Adjus ent acts in a quasi-judicial capac . However, it is not intended
that its proceedings be ducted as formally as t e before courts.
(B) The rules of procedure and ev nce set for in this Ordinance shall be followed to
protect the interests of all parties a t ublic.
(C) The presiding officer shall admin' r oat o all witnesses and shall make rulings
necessary to preserve fairne , order, or prop decorum in any matter before the Board
of Adjustment. Any pers who, while under oath ring a proceeding before the Board,
willfully swears false is guilty of a Class I misdemean
(D) Any member e Board of Adjustment or any interested pa may object to, and the
presiding icer may exclude, any evidence, testimony, or stater t that is deemed
inco tent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious and therefore ils to reasonably
ress the issues before the Board of Adjustment.
2.12.3 dence and Testimony
(A) Interested Party
45 Typographical error that staff recommends correcting as part of this amendment package.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-45
Article 2: Procedures 41
Section 2.12: Board of Adjustment
(1) Any interested party may present evidence or testimony, cross-examine
witnesses, inspect documents, and offer evidence or testimony in explana on or
rebuttal.
(2) Any member of the Board of Adjustment may question any interested arty.
(3) Persons other than interested parties may make competent, relev t, and
material comments.
(B) Subpoenas
( The Board of Adjustment may subpoena witnesses and co pel the production of
evidence.
(2) To request issuance of a subpoena, persons with sta ing as detailed under
CGS 160A-939(d), shall make a written request to a chair explaining why it is
n essary for certain witnesses or evidence to be ompelled. The chair shall
issu requested subpoenas in those cases whe testimony or evidence is
deem to be relevant, reasonable in nature d scope, and not oppressive.
(3) The chair hall rule on any motion to quas r modify a subpoena. Decisions
regarding s poenas made by the chair ay be appealed to the full Board.
(4) If a person fail or refuses to obey a s poena issued pursuant to this
subsection, the and of Adjustmen or the party seeking the subpoena, may
apply to the Gener Court of Just, e for an order requiring that its order be
obeyed, and the Co will have ' risdiction to issue those orders after notice to
all proper parties.
(5) No testimony of any witne efore the Board of Adjustment, pursuant to a
subpoena issued in exerc of the power conferred by this subsection, may be
used against the witnes in an civil or criminal action, other than a prosecution
for false swearing co itted on e examination.
(6) Anyone who, while nder oath duri a proceeding before the Board of
Adjustment, willf y swears falsely, is uilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
2.12.4 Quorum and Vote Required
(A) A/sePermit the B and is necessary to conduct any b siness and shall consist of four
m
(B) Th vote of four of the members of the Board s II be necessary in order to
efriation in this Ordinance.
(C) A the members shall be required to decide on the is ance of a Class B
SpPermit or an appeal application.
2.12.5 Notificatio d Action
/(A) ithin five working days after Board action, the Planning Director shall h e available in e Planning Department's office a notice of decision of the Board's action.e Planning Director shall notify the parties to an application or appeal of the oard's position. This includes the applicant, the property owner if different from the plicant,any individual who has submitted a written request for a copy prior to the date t cision becomes effective. This notice shall be made by registered or certified mai hin five working days of the Board's actions.
e Planning Director shall keep a copy of the Board's action on file.
2.12.6 Notice Requirements for Matters Before the Board
(A) The Board shall give notice of matters coming before it by causing notice to be placed in
a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County. The notice shall appear once a
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-46
Article 2: Procedures 42
Section 2.13: Exempt Subdivisions
week for two consecutive weeks, the first insertion to be not less than ten days nor more
than 25 days prior to the meeting date. In computing the notice period, the day of
publication is not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be included.
(B) In the case of application for a Class B Special Use permit or variance the Planning
Director shall give written notice by mail to adjacent property owners.
This notice shall be given Ret less than 15 days mailed at least ten days but not more
than 25 days prior to the meeting date. Adjacent property owners are those whose
property lies within feet of the affected property and whom are
currently listed as property owners in the Orange County tax records.47 The outside of
the envelope or postcard shall be marked "Notice of Public Hearing."
(C) The Planning Director shall post on the affected property a notice of the Board meeting at
least ten days but not more than 25 days48 prior to the meeting date.
(D) In the case of an appeal of a Stop Work Order issued by the Planning Director, the
Planning Director shall give written notice by certified mail to the property owner, and/or
person(s) engaged in the alleged violation. Notification of adjacent property owners,
posting of property, and publication of a hearing notice is not required.
SECTION
2.13.1 Gene 1
(A) Pers roposing divisions of land that do not constitute a sub sion must request a
determine of an exempt subdivision status with the Pla g Director. Activities that
do not constitu subdivision are found in Section 7.
(B) One copy of the final r plat and three page pies of the plat shall be submitted with
the request for a determina for an exe subdivision.
(C) Exempt subdivisions shall comply i all applicable non-plat requirements of this
Ordinance.
2.13.2 Review and Action
(A) Following rec t of a request for a determination of an e pt subdivision status, the
Plannin irector shall make a determination of the land divis 's exempt or nonexempt
stat
(B) If the Planning Director determines that the proposed land division does n constitute a
subdivision, the Planning Director shall certify the proposed land division as e t and
include the necessary statement on the plat certifying same.
46 The Staff Attorney had suggested language modifications in (A)that would result in the omission of public
hearings for SUPS from legal advertisements since the general public does not have standing in such matters and
cannot participate. However, at the September 8,2015 public hearing,comments were received to continue to
publish SUP notices in the legal advertisements but to add additional language to the legal ad if necessary for legal
sufficiency reasons. Therefore,existing language in (A) has been restored and is no longer suggested for
modification. Planning and Attorney staff will work together to ensure future legal ads are modified as necessary.
47 Language modification suggested to be consistent with Statutes and to ensure that the outer limit of 25 days in
not inadvertently missed. State statutes do not require mailing via certified mail. Because of the proposed
notification distance increase (from 500 feet to 1,000 feet),staff is suggesting that notices be mailed via first class
mail in order to keep costs and necessary staff time lower. Because notices for the Neighborhood Information
Meeting are sent more than a month before this notice for the public hearing, notification to the public regarding
proposed projects is occurring much sooner in the review process than in the past.
48 Language modification suggested to be consistent with Statutes and to ensure that the outer limit of 25 days in
not inadvertently missed.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-47
Article 5: Uses 43
Last portion of Section 5.10.2 Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
(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 annually at the FebFuaFy first Quarterly Public
Hearing of the calendar year, normally held in February. Any applicant requesting
modification of the Plan shall make application to the Planning Director on or before
December 1st of each year. 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. 3 Annual Telecommunications Projection Meeting (ATPM)
Purpose and Outcome
(1) The purpose of the ATPM meeting is to allow for a complete revZfcollocation
opportunities, address coverage issues, and discuss the Iocati oneee
telecommunication support structures with providers who in t on submitting
evelopment applications for action by the County. The ' ended outcome of the
m ing is to allow the County and interested parties develop a plan for facility
deplo ent within the County that provides reaso le coverage based on the
needs of County and its residents, while mi mizing the total number of
needed telec munication support facilitie ncluding minimizing the
intrusiveness o ch facilities, and enco aging the development of a more
efficient telecommu ' ation network.
(2) The intended outcome o e m ing is an understanding amongst the Planning
Director and providers on ar s of the County where telecommunication support
facilities are needed and plic 'on request for the year should be focused.
(B) Applicability
(1) By December of each calendar year, ecommunication providers shall
submit to th Tanning Director a plan indica proposed search rings for
anticipat telecommunication support structure This plan shall identify areas
wher roviders are looking to locate facilities, as w as identify those areas of
th ounty that are underserved by existing facilities.
(2) As of the effective date of this Ordinance amendment any p ding applications
that have not received a zoning compliance permit or a special e permit shall
meet all requirements of this Ordinance, including, but not limited t ubmission
deadlines, application standards and processing, excluding the ATPM
requirement.
(C) Meeting Specifics
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-92
44
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
45
APPROVED 11/8/2012
PLANNING BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
SECTION L SCOPE
A. Purpose
1. To establish a policy and procedures whereby the Orange County
Board of Commissioners will establish the specific policies and
procedures governing the Planning Board.
2. The Orange County Board of Commissioners may appoint an advisory
board whose duty is to serve in an advisory capacity to Orange County
Board of Commissioners.
B. Authority
1. North Carolina General Statute 153A-76 grants boards of county
commissioners the authority to establish advisory boards.
2. The Orange County Advisory Board Policy serves as the underlying
policy document to which the Planning Board, in addition to this policy
and procedure document, is subject. The Orange County Advisory
Board Policy is attached hereto as "Exhibit A".
3. In the event that there is a conflict between the Orange County
Advisory Board Policy and this Policies and Procedures document this
Policies and Procedures document shall control.
C. Charge
1. The charge of the Planning Board is contained in Section 1.6.3 of the
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance.
The purpose for which the Planning Board was formed: to serve in an
advisory capacity to the Orange County Board of Commissioners in
regards to planning, zoning, and subdivision matters, as provided in
Section 1.6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance.
SECTION II: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
A. Goals
1. The Planning Board shall carry out the duties contained in Section
1.6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance to the best
of its ability.
B. Objectives
1. Acting under the directives of the Board of County Commissioners and
with County staff, the Planning Board shall pursue the duties contained
in Section 1.6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance.
SECTION III: MEMBERSHIP
46
APPROVED 11/8/2012
A. Authority
1. North Carolina General Statute 153A-76 grants boards of county
commissioners the authority to establish advisory boards and to
appoint members to and remove members from those advisory boards.
In acting on this authority the Orange County Board of Commissioners
hereby establishes certain general conditions to which applicants and
members of advisory boards should conform.
B. Composition
1. Planning Board composition is detailed in Section 1.6.1 of the Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance. Additional membership
requirements are listed in said Section of the UDO.
2. The Planning Board does not have alternate members.
C. Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary
1. The Planning Board shall elect by majority vote a Chair and Vice Chair
from among its members at the regular meeting in January of each
year.
2. Chair and Vice Chair terms of office shall correspond to the
requirements of the Orange County Advisory Board Policy.
3. The Secretary of the Planning Board shall be the Planning Director or
his/her designee.
4. The Chair and Secretary shall ensure that each Planning Board
member is presented with a copy of the Planning Board's charge,
scope of authority, membership responsibilities, and code of conduct
when the Planning Board member is appointed to the Planning Board.
5. The Planning Board Chair, or Vice Chair in the Chair's absence, shall
attend quarterly public hearings and Board of County Commissioners
meetings at which a decision is scheduled for items on which the
Planning Board has made a recommendation.'
SECTION IV.MEETINGS
A. Staffing
1. The Planning Director shall perform the duties set forth in Section
1.6.4 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance.
B. Agendas
1. Items for agendas shall be approved by the Planning Board Chair and
staff.
1 The new requirement was suggested at the May 12,2015 BOCC work session when the BOCC discussed the
public hearing process.
47
APPROVED 11/8/2012
2. The designated staff will develop and distribute to each member an
agenda listing the matters to be considered at upcoming advisory
board meetings. The regular meeting agenda and materials shall be
distributed at least seven (7) calendar days before the regular meeting
C. Date, Time, and Location of Regular Meetings
1 . Regular Meetings of the Planning Board shall be held on the first
Wednesday of each month. The start time and location of the meeting
shall be included on the agenda and shall typically be 7:00 p.m. at the
Orange County West Campus Office Building located at 131 West
Margaret Lane, Hillsborough. The Planning Board Chair, in
consultation with staff, shall have the authority to change the start time
and location of a regular meeting to meet any special circumstances,
provided the information is included on the distributed agenda.
D. Notice of Meetings
1 . Notice of regular Planning Board meetings and agendas shall be made
available to all members and interested parties, and to any person who
requests such notice, at least seven (7) days in advance of the
meeting by e-mail and by posting on the Orange County government
website.
2. Notice of public hearings shall conform to the notice requirements of
Section 2.3.6 and/or 2.8.7, as applicable, of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance.
3. Agenda materials for public hearings shall be distributed to Planning
Board members and posted on the Orange County government
website for interested parties a minimum of ten (10) calendar days
prior to the public hearing.
E. Quarterly Public Hearings`
1. Planning Board members are expected to attend the quarterly public
hearings held by the Board of County Commissioners. The dates of
said hearings are established each calendar year by the Board of
County Commissioners.
2. Failure to attend at least two quarterly public hearings per calendar
year may result in removal from the Planning Board, as detailed in
Section III.H of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Advisory Board Policy.
F. Neighborhood Information Meetings3
Z At its October 7t" meeting,the Planning Board suggested that language be added to clarify attendance
expectations at quarterly public hearings.
48
APPROVED 11/8/2012
1. Planning Board members shall be encouraged to attend Neighborhood
Information Meetings (NIMs) for Class A Special Use Permits and
Conditional Zoning Districts. At-Large members and members
representing the Township in which a particular development project is
proposed are specifically encouraged to attend the NIM.
2. Planning Department staff shall keep Planning Board members
informed of upcoming Class A Special Use Permit and Conditional
Zoning District NIMs via e-mailed messages. Said e-mail messages
shall be sent to Planning Board members on the same date, or shortly
after, the notifications are mailed to adjacent property owners.
SECTION V. ORIENTATION
A. Attendance
1. Each member shall attend an orientation presented by the Orange
County Staff to familiarize the advisory board members with the
operation of County government, the Planning Department rules, and
the operating procedures of the advisory board.
2. Each voting member will be encouraged to complete the orientation
within six weeks of his or her appointment and participate in at least
one meeting with the staff.
SECTION VI.BY-LAWS
A. By-Laws
1. Any Bylaws adopted by the Planning Board are void and no further
bylaws shall be adopted. Procedure shall be governed solely by this
policy document and the General Advisory Board Policy Document.
2. Should the Planning Board determine modifications to policies and
procedures are necessary the Planning Board may petition the Board
of County Commissioners for such modifications.
3 This new procedure is in response to Planning Board members expressing the desire to be kept informed of
upcoming NIMs for projects on which the Planning Board will make a recommendation so they may attend the
meetings.
1 49
Excerpt of Draft Minutes Attachment 4
1 DRAFT MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
4 September 8, 2015
5 7:00 P.M.
6
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
8 Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on September 8, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building,
9 in Hillsborough, N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs,
12 Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
14 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
16 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
17 appropriately below)
18 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board
19 members Lisa Stuckey, Herman Staats, Paul Guthrie, Laura Nicholson, Andrea Rohrbacher,
20 Maxecine Mitchell, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, James Lea, Tony Blake
21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman
22
23 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
24
25 **********************************************
26 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
27
28 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
29 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise the existing public hearing process
30 for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related items/amendments.
31
32 Perdita Holtz presented the following background and PowerPoint slides:
33 The purpose of this text amendment is to consider revisions to the current public hearing
34 process for Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas
35 amendments. County staff and elected officials received comments during development of the
36 Comprehensive Plan (2008) and Unified Development Ordinance (2011) about the perceived
37 need to streamline and speed up decisions on applications.
38 This topic was discussed extensively in 2014 after being heard at the September 2014
39 quarterly public hearing. The public hearing for the amendments, as proposed in 2014, was
40 closed in November 2014 when it became apparent that the proposal would change significantly
41 enough to require another public hearing. The topic was recently discussed at the May 12,
42 2015 BOCC work session.
43 The Ordinance Review Committee (ORC), a function of the Planning Board, reviewed draft
44 language in July and August 2015. At the time, internal staff/attorney review was ongoing and
45 the materials to be presented at public hearing have been modified from the versions the ORC
46 reviewed.
47 The following revisions are being proposed:
2 50
1 • Planning Board review/recommendation would occur prior to the public hearing for both
2 legislative and quasi-judicial (Class A Special Use Permit) items. (The existing process
3 is for Planning Board review/recommendation to occur after the public hearing).
4
5 • Notification of the Planning Board meeting would be mailed/posted for items requiring
6 such notice (e.g., map amendments or development projects) and the public would be
7 able to address the Planning Board at its meeting. The proposed process would allow
8 for public notification and involvement earlier than the existing process.
9
10 No longer require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a quarterly
11 public hearing. Planning Board members would still be expected to attend the hearing
12 but a quorum of members would not be necessary in order for the hearing to be held.
13 This revision would mean that the quarterly public hearings would no longer be
14 considered joint BOCC/Planning Board hearings since, without a quorum requirement,
15 the Planning Board could not be considered an official board in attendance.
16
17 Revise the Planning Board Policies and Procedures to require that the Planning Board
18 Chair, or Vice-Chair in the Chair's absence, attend the quarterly public hearings and also
19 the BOCC meetings at which a decision is scheduled for items on which the Planning
20 Board has made a recommendation.
21
22 Allow Comprehensive Plan amendments to be heard at any quarterly public hearing
23 (QPH). Existing language that states "principal" Comprehensive Plan amendments are
24 "generally" considered only once per year at the quarterly public hearing in February is
25 proposed for deletion (Section 2.3.7). Additionally, language that classifies
26 Comprehensive Plan amendments into "principal" and "secondary" amendments
27 (Section 2.3.4) is proposed for deletion because it is relevant only in conjunction with
28 Section 2.3.7.
29
30 Legal advertisement of quasi-judicial hearing items: the Attorney's office has suggested
31 that Special Use Permit applications (both Class A and Class B) no longer be included in
32 legal advertisements since the general public does not have standing to participate in
33 quasi-judicial hearings. Language modifications in Sections 2.7.6 and 2.12.6 reflect this
34 suggestion.
35
36 Closure of public hearings: Modifications in Section 2.3.11, 2.7.9, and 2.8.9 would mean
37 that the BOCC would close the public hearing the night of the hearing. At that time, the
38 BOCC could defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date; make a decision; or, as a
39 procedural right not included in the text of the UDO, send an application back to the
40 Planning Board for further review. If the BOCC chooses to defer a decision to a later
41 meeting date, legislative items could be listed on the future BOCC agenda as "Regular
42 Agenda" items and additional public comment could be accepted. The existing
43 requirement for only written comments after the quarterly public hearing is proposed for
44 deletion.
45
46 In order to meet legal sufficiency text of the UDO, send an application back to the
47 Planning Board for further review. If the BOCC chooses to defer a decision to a later
48 meeting date, legislative items could be listed on the future BOCC agenda as "Regular
3 51
1 Agenda" items and additional public comment could be accepted. The existing
2 requirement for only written comments after the quarterly public hearing, is proposed for
3 deletion.
4
5 The BOCC may wish to consider adding an additional heading to its agendas: Quasi-
6 Judicial Hearings, along with a note explaining that only persons with legal standing can
7 participate in quasi-judicial hearings. Quasi-judicial items deferred for decision to a later
8 meeting date or for which the hearing was continued in order to receive additional
9 evidence would be listed on the BOCC agenda under this new heading.
10
11 As has been discussed in the past, the bases for some of the proposed revisions are as
12 follows:
13 1. Allow the public to make comments at the end of the process.
14 2. Do not require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a public hearing.
15 3. Streamline and speed up the review/decision process when possible.
16
17 The proposed revisions are expected to achieve these objectives. When the BOCC
18 discussed this topic at its May 12, 2015 work session members indicated that if the process
19 were revised it should be evaluated after one year to ensure it was working as intended and
20 satisfactorily. If the proposed revisions are adopted, an evaluation can be scheduled for a year
21 later. Any future revisions to the UDO would need to be brought forward to a future public
22 hearing.
23
24 Public Hearing Process
25 Quarterly Public Hearing
26 September 8, 2015
27 Item C.2
28
29 Purpose of Amendment
30 • To revise the current public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan, Unified
31 Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas Amendments
32 • Most recently discussed by BOCC at May 12, 2015 work session.
33 -Allow the public to make comments at the end of the legislative process.
34 -No longer require only written comments after the public hearing.
35 -Do not require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a
36 quarterly public hearing.
37 -Streamline and speed up the review/decision process when possible.
38 -Have option to make a decision the night of the hearing on items with little
39 controversy.
40
41 If process is revised, evaluate after one year.
42 Proposal
43
44 Planning Board Review/Recommendation before the public hearing.
45 -Allows public participation earlier in the process.
46 -Would allow for decision on low controversy items the night of the hearing.
4 52
1 -Attorney's office has advised that having the Planning Board review/recommendation
2 prior to the public hearing provides for a greater level of legal sufficiency on quasi-
3 judicial items.
4
5 • No longer require a Planning Board quorum in order to hold a quarterly public hearing.
6 -Planning Board Chair (or Vice-Chair) would be required to attend QPHs and BOCC
7 meetings at which a decision is scheduled.
8
9 • Allow Comprehensive Plan amendments to be heard at any QPH.
10 • No longer include Special Use Permit applications in published legal advertisements
11 since the general public does not have standing to participate.
12 -Sign posting and mailed notices to adjacent property owners would still occur.
13
14 • Closure of public hearings (legislative items):
15 -BOCC would close the hearing the night of the hearing and do one of the following:
16 o Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date.
17 o Make a decision.
18 o Send an application back to the Planning Board (procedural right not
19 included in text of UDO)
20 -If deferred to later date or sent back to Planning Board, when item comes back to
21 BOCC, can be listed as a "Regular Agenda" item and additional public comment could
22 be accepted.
23
24 Closure of public hearings (quasi-judicial items):
25 -BOCC would close the hearing the night of the hearing and do one of the following:
26 o Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date.
27 o Make a decision.
28 -If additional evidence is requested by the BOCC the night of the hearing, the hearing
29 would be continued to a date/time certain so the additional evidence can be presented in
30 a quasi-judicial hearing.
31
32 Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee
33 • Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) reviewed topic in July and August.
34 Staff Coordination
35 Extensive coordination between Planning and Attorney staff, particularly for the quasi-
36 judicial process, to ensure legal sufficiency.
37 Public Notification & JPA Review
38 • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
39 -Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks.
40 • Amendment package sent to JPA partners on August 7, 2015 since public hearing
41 process would apply to any requests related to the Rural Buffer.
42 -To date, no comments have been received.
43
44 Recommendation
5 53
1 • Receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance and Planning Board
2 Policies and Procedures.
3 • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
4 the proposed amendments.
5 • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
6 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2015
7 BOCC regular meeting.
8 • Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
9 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
10
11 Effective Date
12 If amending Ordinance is adopted, the effective date should be a specific date so
13 submittal deadline schedules can be published
14 -Staff recommends starting with the 2016 meeting calendar, so January 1, 2016 effective
15 date.
16
17 Commissioner Pelissier said she understood the requirement of only the Planning Board
18 Chair and Vice Chair to attend the QPH but she asked if the other Planning Board members find
19 these QPHs helpful to attend.
20 Peter Hallenbeck said for some board members it is helpful to attend. He said there is
21 some relief of attendance not being required as it has had impact in the past of the meeting
22 being able to occur when there has not been a quorum.
23 Commissioner Price said, as of now, that she disagreed with the Planning Board being
24 exempt from QPH. She said public comments made at the QPH could affect decisions moving
25 forward. She said, as a result, the Planning Board might be making uninformed decisions.
26 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Planning Board discussed this item and if there were
27 minutes from said discussion.
28 Perdita Holtz said the minutes were included as a link in the analysis section of the form
29 and that they are meeting notes from the Ordinance Review Committee.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said he recalled staff informing the BOCC that the County's
31 approval process was in line with other jurisdictions.
32 Perdita Holtz said yes.
33 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Price.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said he is uncomfortable with the Planning Board not hearing
35 public comment and then making recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. He
36 said he understands the desire to make the process go more smoothly but the BOCC received
37 a letter today from the public that found these new amendments confusing.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said the notion that there would be no public notice for a quasi-
39 judicial hearing goes against the Board's social justice goals. He said people need to be
40 engaged or at least notified, and it is inconsistent with the values of Orange County.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said he trusts the County Manager but finds that one-year
42 reviews get lost in the shuffle over the years; they simply never happen.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said there are ways to deal with those wanting to come to a public
44 hearing and change the nomenclature of how hearings are noticed and what comments are
45 allowed.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said the public wants elected officials to know what they are
47 thinking. He said the County should be careful before adopting this amendment. He said
48 expedition is good but not at the expense of information gathering.
6 54
1 Commissioner Jacobs said he is still uncomfortable with some of these changes.
2 Commissioner Dorosin said he agreed and disagreed with Commissioner Price and
3 Commissioner Jacobs.
4 Commissioner Dorosin said if these amendments were in place tonight, the Board of
5 County Commissioners could approve these items. He said he finds this flexibility to be a good
6 thing.
7 Commissioner Dorosin said notification is important and the public should be able to
8 attend and listen, even if speaking is not permitted.
9 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that his initial concern was that currently the residents do
10 not have the last word. He said after the public speaks the item goes back to the Planning
11 Board. He said the desire is to engage residents earlier in the process, hopefully encouraging
12 more to go to the Planning Board meetings. He said then the public can come to the QPH and
13 will get to address the boards a second time. He said it would be ideal if the decision could then
14 be made.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said the BOCC can still retain the option to send it back to the
16 Planning Board, if need be, for legislative items.
17 Perdita Holtz agreed.
18 Commissioner Dorosin said he does not agree that the Planning Board is being cut out
19 of the process but that the public is being more engaged.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said the distinction between the legislative and quasi-judicial
21 proceedings is what is most confusing to the public. He said the staff should take the time to
22 explain this to the public through pamphlets, the Internet, or on the abstracts. He said staff
23 should build this into the process to make things more clear to the public.
24 Commissioner Dorosin said he would support the change in the structure. He said even
25 though it seems the process is being streamlined really the public is being engaged earlier in
26 the process.
27 Commissioner Rich agreed that after the public speak there is no a chance to dispute
28 what the Planning Board is recommending to the Board of County Commissioners. She said it
29 is important to engage the public throughout the process.
30 Commissioner Rich referred to page 3 and the closure of public hearings. She asked if
31 there is new evidence, should it not be referred back to Planning Board.
32 Perdita Holtz said that is for legislative items only, not quasi-judicial items.
33 Commissioner Rich said she just wanted to make sure that the BOCC, the Planning
34 Board, and the public all have the same information.
35 Perdita Holtz said this goal is achievable with legislative items but more difficult for
36 quasi-judicial items, since that process is more difficult. She said there is a different process for
37 these items. She said an applicant could not be required to divulge all of their evidence at the
38 Planning Board meeting.
39 Commissioner Rich asked if the applicant does not want to show all their cards to the
40 Planning Board, but only to the Board of County Commissioners, then could the item be referred
41 back to the Planning Board, or must the hearing be closed.
42 Perdita Holtz said according to the Attorney's Office she said the item should not be
43 referred back to the Planning Board. She said there is better legal sufficiency if the BOCC
44 handles the item after the quasi-judicial hearing.
45 Commissioner Rich asked if the Board of County Commissioners got new information
46 the Planning Board might not have the opportunity to discuss it.
47 Perdita Holtz said yes, that is possible with quasi-judicial items.
48 Commissioner Rich asked if there was someone responsible for the evening's agenda.
7 55
1 Perdita Holtz said she and other staff compiled it.
2 Commissioner Rich complimented the way the agenda was created and would love for
3 them to be created similarly going forward.
4 Commissioner Price asked if would be possible to expand the notification area in rural
5 areas to 1000 feet as opposed to 500 feet.
6 James Bryan said it is better to have one standard applicable to everyone.
7 Commissioner Price said in rural areas there would not be many people within 500 feet.
8 She asked if this could be reviewed to reach an alternate solution.
9 Perdita Holtz said the County has a growth management system map which designates
10 urban and rural areas of the County. She said it is possible that the map could be used as a
11 guideline for notification especially with legislative items.
12 Commissioner Price said she is speaking of legislative items only.
13 Commissioner Price said she would like the process streamlined. She asked if the
14 Planning Board was at the QPH and there was more public comment, but the item was still
15 ready to proceed, could the Board of County Commissioners as well as Planning Board vote
16 right then for legislative items.
17 Perdita Holtz said yes for legislative items.
18 James Bryan said for legislative items the Board of County Commissioners could decide
19 the night of the QPH or refer back to Planning Board.
20 Commissioner Price said if it was an easy item could the Board of County
21 Commissioners refer it to the Planning Board in the room, and have the Planning Board decide
22 right then rather than wait two months for them to come back with an answer.
23 James Bryan said this was a novel idea. He said it could be procedurally awkward. He
24 said the Board of County Commissioners could recess and then poll the Planning Board.
25 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Planning Board members could speak as a part of
26 the QPH.
27 James Bryan said there could be a straw poll which is not binding.
28 Commissioner Price said this change could be a way to move the process along, while
29 still giving all involved the chance to hear all information before making a decision.
30 Commissioner Pelissier stressed the need to distinguish between which process is being
31 discussed: legislative versus quasi-judicial. She said she could only see Commissioner Price's
32 suggestion working with a non-controversial item.
33 Commissioner Pelissier said her concern now is deciding whether to have just the
34 Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair present or to require a full quorum since it has been such
35 a problem over the years. She said there is not a problem with Planning Board members
36 having access to information since these meetings are web streamed and she would assume
37 that Board members would take their positions seriously and review the meeting if they did not
38 attend. She said a quorum should not be required.
39 Commissioner Pelissier said some of the comments that were written today in a letter to
40 the Board of County Commissioners (see below) were confusing. She said there should be a
41 flow chart to separate the two processes: quasi-judicial versus legislative. She said it should be
42 reiterated that public comment is not being eliminated in the quasi-judicial items, as public
43 comment was never allowed in these items.
44
45 September 8, 2015
46
47 To the Orange County Commissioners:
48
8 56
1 1 am writing to urge you not to approve the UDO text amendments proposed in agenda item #2
2 at tonight's Quarterly Meeting.
3
4 For the Orange County Citizens, opportunities to receive notice and raise questions
5 about Special Use Permit applications are limited. Please do not narrow these limited
6 opportunities further by amending the current SUP language, timelines and flow chart in the
7 UDO. The existing UDO requires advertising of SUP hearings in newspapers, a predictable
8 schedule of hearings at quarterly meetings, and a timeline to allow County residents to gather
9 resources and information, hire legal representation, and prepare for SUP hearings.
10
11 Tonight's proposal to revise the UDO in order to "streamline and speed up the
12 review/decision process" is hard to follow, and it is unclear how citizens may participate
13 at all in the SUP process. The faster, streamlined steps proposed tonight would significantly
14 reduce public participation of surrounding communities, and would benefit applicants at the
15 expense of surrounding property owners.
16
17 The proposed changes would further curtail public participation in multiple ways:
18 • Shortening written notice to adjacent property owners from 15 to 10 days
19 • Eliminating advertising and public notice (see footnote 22 below)
20 • Eliminating joint BOCC and Planning Board quarterly public hearing for Class A SUP
21 applications, a forum which currently allows public comments and requires a quorum of
22 Planning Board members
23 • Eliminating the option for interested parties to comment on SUP applications (see
24 footnote 21 below)
25 • Requiring the Planning Board to make a recommendation without first receiving
26 comments from the public.
27
28 The County's Special Use Permitting process benefits SUP applicants who have already
29 gathered the financial means to pursue a project, while presenting obstacles for County
30 residents without financial resources to hire an attorney in order to protect surrounding
31 properties.
32
33 In addition to financial obstacles, rural communities in particular are hindered by
34 notification limits in time to make a difference in outcomes affecting their communities and
35 property.
36
37 Challenges limiting citizens' ability to oppose SUP project applications:
38 • Cost of representation —The cost of hiring a lawyer precludes many citizens from raising
39 valid concerns at a public hearing. At quasi-judicial hearings in which County lawyers
40 represent boards, County staff, and applicants with financial interest, this is a great
41 disadvantage for citizens.
42 • Notification limit—The 500-foot County notification limit does not accurately reflect the
43 wider scope of affected properties in rural zones with expanses of farms, woodlands,
44 and waterways. Whether the project is an airport, kennel, shooting range or special
45 event center, its impact of safety, light, noise, traffic and property values extend well
46 beyond a tenth of a mile.
47 500 feet does not allow neighbors who would experience impacts to be notifies or have
48 standing to speak at a hearing. Neighbors more than 500 feet from an SUP applicant
9 57
1 are currently not notified or given standing to speak at public hearings about SUP
2 proposals affecting their properties.
3
4 Please do not approve the proposed revisions of the UDO. Instead, I urge you to clarify and
5 expand the ways in which county residents may share concerns with County boards making
6 critical decisions about our communities.
7
8 Thank you,
9
10 Laura Streitfeld
11
12
13 Proposed text amendments in agenda item #2:
14 (B) The Planning Director shall give P611910G notice of the date, time and place of the
15 public hearing to be held to receive ^^ ts, evidence in the form of 21 testimony and exhibits
16 pertaining to the application for a Special Use.
17
18 (C) 'unh notino shall be p Micheal in a newspaper of general nirG Ja4inn in GraRge
19
20 ,
21 li i 0 i i 22
22
23 21 The Staff Attorney has suggested this language modification since SUP applications are
24 quasi-judicial in nature and require testimony rather than comments.
25
26 22 The Staff Attorney has suggested that published newspaper advertisements for quarterly
27 public hearings not include SUP applications since the general public does not have standing in
28 such matters and cannot participate. (State Statutes require mailed and posted notice but do not
29 require legal ads for SUP applications). As shown in the remainder of this section, a notice
30 would be posted on the affected parcel and adjoining property owners would receive mailed
31 notification of the hearing date (in addition to mailed and posted notice of the Neighborhood
32 Information Meeting and Planning Board meeting).
33
34 Commissioner Jacobs said he has often asked for a primer to be placed on the planning
35 website explaining this confusing process, and it has not been done. He asked if the other
36 Commissioners agreed with him, and the majority of the Board did so.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said he tried to read the Ordinance Review Committee minutes
38 but the link is broken.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said the new process makes it meaningless to have a Planning
40 Board caucus, for non-controversial items. He said the flip side is that if one or two
41 Commissioners have reservations about an issue, it can be referred back to the Planning Board.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said the question of distances in rural area has come up before in
43 the past. He said rural area impacts are different than urban and suburban impact.
44 Commissioner Jacobs asked if other commissioners agreed with him that staff should
45 look at different distances for rural and urban notifications, as long as it is legal.
46 Commissioner Burroughs said people expect to see a process run through the mill, and
47 the County's process is counterintuitive. She said this process extends the amount of notice for
48 neighborhood information meetings, allows the public to speak at Planning Board and Board of
10 58
1 County Commissioners' meetings. She asked if new information is brought forth at a quasi-
2 judicial hearing, could the public send in written comments afterwards.
3 Perdita Holtz said no written comments would be permitted.
4 James Bryan said that is a statutory requirement.
5 Commissioner Burroughs said she supports these new amendments and she also said
6 notice could be put in the paper for the public to attend to the meeting even though they cannot
7 speak. She said if notice needs to be further for rural areas, and it can be legally done, she
8 would be supportive.
9 Commissioner Rich said she does not want the Planning Board to feel unheard and she
10 does not want the Planning Board to be cut out at any point. She said if there is new
11 information the item should go back for the Planning Board's review and opinion.
12 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not comfortable with the "non-controversial and
13 controversial" labels. He is not sure these definitions could be agreed upon.
14 Peter Hallenbeck reviewed notes from the Planning Board:
15 • Attendance at QPH - Planning Board members should be expected to attend the QPH.
16 The Board of Commissioners should be aware of the attendance of the Planning Board
17 members at the QPH, and if several are missed the BOCC should be able to excuse the
18 person from the Planning Board.
19 • The public does not like to show up to Planning Board meetings as much as Board of
20 County Commissioners meetings and he said it is assumed that this is because the
21 Planning Board does not make decisions. It is hoped that the public can be educated
22 that the minutes of the Planning Board meetings are given to the BOCC, and public input
23 is valuable.
24 • Neighborhood information meetings — it is new and it is evolving and the Planning Board
25 feels that the information the public gets should be about the process.
26 • Put QR codes on signs in the neighborhoods.
27 • 1000 feet notification in the rural areas can be worked with staff and an agreement can
28 be reached. There will be different rules for the two processes.
29 • Put time ranges between the blocks on the flow charts that lay out the processes. The
30 flow makes sense but time will be very informative.
31
32 Paul Guthrie said if disingenuous information is received in a quasi-judicial process, how
33 does one refute this information without re-examination.
34 He suggested that attendance at QPH, and other meetings, be studied. He said the only
35 thing the members can be excused from a meeting for is death, sickness, or some other similar
36 reason. He said Planning Board members are citizen volunteers with their own lives, who are
37 trying to be helpful. He said if too many restrictions are placed on the members volunteers may
38 be lost and new volunteers may not be as good.
39 Tony Blake said the 500 feet limit is not reasonable for rural areas, and encouraged the
40 BOCC to review this limit. He said he had to question the quasi-judicial process, and ex parte
41 communication. He said Statute 168-388 mentions ex parte communication once, saying that
42 "undisclosed ex parte communication" cannot be received. He asked if disclosed ex parte
43 communication is allowed, and asked if there is a point at which ex parte communication begins.
44 He asked if it begins when the application is made, or if it is after the QPH. He said it is
45 imperative for them to be able to talk to people in their community.
46 Tony Blake said the genesis about attendance of Planning Board members is that it was
47 never reiterated to them, as new volunteers, that attendance was expected. He said if this was
48 clearly explained, he expects attendance would not be a problem.
11 59
1 Tony Blake said the word "quasi" means the administrative agencies are not held to the
2 same rules as courts, unless it is spelled out in the statute. He said he does not see this spelled
3 out in the statute, and thus feels there is a lot of room for interpretation.
4 Andrea Rohrbacher said the attendance at the QPH is eroding is part due to some of the
5 late night meetings. She said she does not want the attendance requirements to be so
6 restrictive that turnover becomes a problem on the Planning Board. She said there is a large
7 learning curve on this board, and turnover would increase burdens on the staff that orient
8 Planning Board members.
9 Laura Nicholson said she believed that if the need for a quorum were clearly explained
10 in the beginning, this would help greatly with attendance. She said she supports the increased
11 notification in rural areas.
12 Maxecine Mitchell said the processes are confusing. She said she does not mind
13 coming to the QPH, but she does not want to be the one who holds up a meeting.
14 Pete Hallenbeck said the Planning Board members are encouraged to go to
15 neighborhood meetings. He said clear guidelines are needed regarding ex parte
16 communication, as it pertains to the quasi-judicial process.
17 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated all of the comments. He said ex parte
18 communication could be shared. He said that what matters is that the decision is made on
19 evidence heard in the hearing. He said guidelines would be a good idea.
20 Commissioner Rich thanked the Planning Board for their comments. She asked if there
21 are set rules for quasi-judicial processes, or do they change.
22 James Bryan said every Special Use Permit (SUP) will be quasi-judicial, and he said
23 there are pre-set standards. He said the Board is taking standards and applying facts to those
24 standards. He said within quasi-judicial there is more that is known than unknown.
25 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a definition of an expert witness.
26 James Bryan said generally it is some specialized knowledge in a particular field. He
27 said the statute spells out that for land values there must be an appraiser. He said the
28 applicant is represented by an attorney who might say, "this is an incompetent witness". He
29 said if there was a case in criminal court, an expert would be greatly vetted, but in quasi-judicial
30 hearings an expert is not so greatly investigated.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said that the quorum of the Planning Board is only required for a
32 meeting to start.
33 James Bryan disagreed and said a quorum is required for the duration of the meeting.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said he has never heard this information before. He said there
35 should be clarification given to all. He added that if Planning Board attendance is going to be
36 required at the QPH, this should be clearly stated in the Planning Board application, and added
37 to their orientation.
38 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Commissioner Dorosin could clarify his concerns
39 regarding the proposed procedural changes.
40 Commissioner Dorosin said he is in favor of the BOCC voting at the QPH when there is
41 consensus from the Planning Board, and even when there is not consensus.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said he thought Commissioner Dorosin was arguing against that.
43 Commissioner Dorosin said he is trying to avoid the back door option of sending it back
44 to the Planning Board. He said if four Commissioners want to pass it at the QPH, the Board
45 should vote then whether the item is controversial or non-controversial.
46 Commissioner Price said she would like to see a forward moving process and if all are in
47 the same room let the vote move the process onward.
12 60
1 Planning Board Member Lisa Stuckey said if an item gets to the QPH, that it should not
2 be kicked back to the Planning Board unless it was a major and unexpected exception.
3 Chair McKee said he can support removing the requirement that the Planning Board
4 members attend the joint meetings, but highly encouraged the Planning Board to attend.
5 Chair McKee said the BOCC has never removed anyone from the Planning Board
6 because of unexcused absences.
7 Chair McKee said these text amendments do not need to make these processes any
8 more confusing than they already are.
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
11 approve:
12
13 1. Referring the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
14 returned to the BOCC in time for the November 5, 2015 BOCC regular meeting.
15 Increase noticing of distance, and reinstating paper notification and language to be clear and
16 who is able to testify, and quorum recommendations.
17
18 2. Adjourning the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
19 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
20
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23
Attachment 5 61
DRAFT
1 Excerpt of Draft Minutes MINUTES
2 PLANNING BOARD
3 OCTOBER 7,2015
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel
7 Hill Township (Vice Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill
8 Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative;
9 Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats,
10 At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative;Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large
11 Chapel Hill Township;
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: None
14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz,
16 Planning Systems Coordinator;Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Patrick Mallett, Planner II;
17
18 OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Koch, PE Earth Centric Engineering, Inc.; Tom Heffner, Developer Heffner Properties, Inc.;
19
20 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER
21
22
23 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT-To make a recommendation
24 on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise the existing public
25 hearing process for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-,and Zoning Atlas-related
26 items/amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2015 quarterly public
27 hearing.
28
29 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
30
31 Perdita Holtz reviewed the abstract.
32
33 Perdita Holtz:As a result of questions asked at the public hearing by the BOCC and Planning Board there have been
34 a couple of changes made to the version presented at the public hearing. These changes are shown in orange text in
35 the agenda package.
36
37 Paul Guthrie: How are you going to legally document that you have mailed the notices?
38
39 Perdita Holtz: The person that does the mailings in the department does a certification of mailing. State statutes do
40 not require certified mail.
41
42 Perdita Holtz: The BOCC asked for the Planning Board to provide input on whether you think a quorum of Planning
43 Board members is necessary to hold a public hearing or if the proposal should stay as it is stating the Planning Board
44 is expected to attend the quarterly public hearing, but a quorum is not necessary in order to have the public hearing.
45
46 Pete Hallenbeck: What does everyone think about whether or not Planning Board members should be required to
47 attend? I am inclined to go around the room and allow everyone to comment.
48
49 Laura Nicholson:A quorum is important.
50
51 Pete Hallenbeck: When you say a quorum is important, that means you do want it to be a joint meeting where the
52 Planning Board members are required to be there and therefore you have to have a quorum.
53
1
62
DRAFT
54 Laura Nicholson: That is my opinion. I think if you have that and make it clear then it should not be a problem.
55
56 Maxecine Mitchell: I am sort of leaning both ways, but I feel sometimes rushed to make it to a meeting in order to not
57 hold it up or be the reason the meeting can't go forward. I would still come to the meetings because I agree they are
58 important for us to make decisions.
59
60 Buddy Hartley: I don't think a quorum is necessary.
61
62 Paul Guthrie: I'm torn. The quorum is probably a good idea for the educational benefit for this group. The reason 1
63 support a quorum is because we need to be engaged in some of the items that come through. My other thought is we
64 need a better idea defining what a quorum is. If four people were legitimately ill, this could set back a whole process
65 for months. I would support a quorum, but would like some discussion with legal counsel how you calculate the
66 quorum if some event occurs.
67
68 James Lea: I personally do not think a quorum is necessary.
69
70 Herman Staats: I think documents can be written to indicate Planning Board members are expected to be there
71 without legally requiring a quorum. I think a quorum is not needed, but members are expected to be there.
72
73 Lisa Stuckey: I completely agree with Herman and I would direct our attention to page 97 of the materials where we
74 have our date, time, and location of regular meetings and Section 4 on page 96. 1 think quarterly public hearings
75 should be added as a section on page 96 and it be stated Planning Board members are encouraged to attend, but
76 not required.
77
78 Tony Blake: I agree with Laura. I think it should be a requirement if we are going to be bound by quasi-judicial
79 testimony and provide input to the decision makers then we should attend the meeting.
80
81 Andrea Rohrbacher: I feel that the Planning Board members are expected to attend, but I do not want to hold us to a
82 quorum. Part of that is based on Commissioner Jacobs saying that as long as you have a quorum at the start of the
83 meeting you are okay. I brought up the point that sometimes the meetings go on extremely long and people have to
84 leave due to other obligations and the County Attorney stated you can't take a vote if someone leaves if you require a
85 quorum. I do not want to see us in that position. I also think it's difficult for staff because we have had quorum
86 problems in the past. Should be expected to attend, but a quorum does not have to be present to hold the public
87 hearing.
88
89 Lydia Wegman: I support requiring a quorum, but that is linked to my view that I prefer having the Planning Board
90 make its recommendation after the Public Hearing. I still do not like having the Planning Board make its
91 recommendation before the public hearing. If the outcome is that the Planning Board makes its recommendation
92 before the public hearing then I am comfortable going with expected to attend not required to attend.
93
94 Pete Hallenbeck: My view is that I do not want to have a quorum because in the past there have been too many
95 times that the meeting was held up. I like the change requiring at least the chair or vice chair attend the public
96 hearing. I agree with the concept we should encourage members to come and put something in the policies and
97 procedures that members are required to attend at least two quarterly public hearings a year or be dismissed in order
98 to make it clear what their expectation is.
99
100 Pete Hallenbeck: Let's move on and deliberate on the amendments. I will open the floor to any comments anyone
101 has.
102
103 Laura Nicholson: I wanted to be clear about the mailings. Will it still be certified with 500 feet and regular mail for the
104 500 to 1000 feet?
105
2
63
DRAFT
106 Perdita Holtz: We are suggesting everyone get regular mail. Having to separate mailing list may be confusing in the
107 future.
108
109 Lydia Wegman: I am comfortable with first class mail, but would it be possible to put on the outside of the envelope
110 notice of public hearing so people are aware they are getting a notice from the county.
111
112 Pete Hallenbeck: Signs will still go up?
113
114 Perdita Holtz:Yes.
115
116 Lydia Wegman: I continue to be concerned about having the Planning Board make its recommendation before the
117 BOCC meeting. I think the recommendation should be made following the hearing so that the Planning Board can
118 hear all the evidence before making a recommendation.
119
120 Tony Blake: The thing that resonated with me was the intent to give the public the last word. It's difficult for us to go
121 after the public hearing and still have the public give the last word. But I share your concern that we are making a
122 recommendation before we have heard all the evidence.
123
124 Herman Staats: If I remember at ourjoint meeting the BOCC was saying that if there was a case that came up and
125 there was a lot of discussion or disagreement they had the opportunity to send it back to us for more discussion.
126
127 Perdita Holtz: The BOCC does have the discretion to send legislative items back to the Planning Board as needed.
128
129 Herman Staats: Is it possible that our recommendation to the BOCC was that we would like to defer our
130 recommendation to after the public hearing?
131
132 Perdita Holtz: Depending on what the recommendation is. The recommendation can be for the Planning Board to be
133 given an extended amount of time to consider the manner, but you can't say you have to send it back to us.
134
135 Pete Hallenbeck:Are there any other items in the proposal that people would like to discuss? If there aren't then the
136 next step here is to make a recommendation on the statement of consistency.
137
138 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to recommend approval of the statement of consistency. Buddy Hartley seconded.
139 VOTE: 9—2 (Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman opposed)
140
141 Tony Blake: If we are going to be part of the process and bound by the rules of quasi-judicial and ex parte
142 communication then we should be required to attend and that is the part that I find inconsistent.
143
144 Lydia Wegman: I feel that the Planning Board should be making its recommendation following the public hearing
145 because I am concerned with the Planning Board not hearing all the evidence that will go before the BOCC. I am
146 pleased to know the BOCC has the discretion to send something back to the Planning Board. In my perspective 1
147 would prefer to have the guarantee for the opportunity of the Planning Board to consider an item after the public
148 hearing when I am confident all the evidence has been presented whereas I do not feel confident that is the case if
149 the Planning Board makes it recommendation prior to the BOCC meeting. Consistent with that my preference would
150 be if we continued to make our recommendation after the County Commissioners meeting that a quorum should be
151 required or the Board attest to hearing the BOCC public hearing so there is certification that the Planning Board is
152 knowledgeable about the evidence presented. The idea of having a preliminary Planning Board recommendation and
153 a subsequent or final Planning Board recommendation following the BOCC meeting is also one that makes sense to
154 me.
155
156 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve the amendment package on pages 62 to 98 with amendments to page 92
157 regarding the expectations of Planning Board members regarding the quarterly public hearing and adding notice of
158 the public hearing to the outside of the mailing envelopes. James Lea seconded.
3
64
DRAFT
159 VOTE: 9—2 (Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman opposed)
160
161 Tony Blake: Same reasons, I believe it should be a requirement to be at the quarterly public hearing if we are bound
162 by the process.
163
164 Lydia Wegman: Same concerns I expressed previously.
165
166 **************************
4
65
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 revise the existing public hearing process.
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.
1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the
following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair,
open, efficient, and responsive.
c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Allows public participation and comments earlier in the review process than
the existing process.
2. Streamlines and speeds up the review and decision process for low
controversy applications while retaining the potential for additional review
time when warranted.
3. Allows the public to offer comments to elected and appointed officials
throughout the legislative process.
4. Provides a greater level of legal sufficiency for applications reviewed under
the quasi-judicial process (e.g., Special Use Permits).
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
66
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 revise the existing public hearing process.
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.
1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the
following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair,
open, efficient, and responsive.
c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Allows public participation and comments earlier in the review process than
the existing process.
2. Streamlines and speeds up the review and decision process for low
controversy applications while retaining the potential for additional review
time when warranted.
3. Allows the public to offer comments to elected and appointed officials
throughout the legislative process.
4. Provides a greater level of legal sufficiency for applications reviewed under
the quasi-judicial process (e.g., Special Use Permits).
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
Attachment 6 67
Timeline Example — Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Application
Plan Submittal
Amendments
Text Future Land Use Map
Past Sign /Mall Ncs#ids for Mail: min. 15 days
Planning Boarst'Meeifiing, prior to meeting.
and'Publie Hearing° Sign: min. 10 days
Development Advisory
Committee Meeting ^72 weeks after submittal
Staff'itecommendation to
Planning Bocirct' 1 week prior to meeting
-4 weeks after submittal/
Planning Board evieW -3 weeks prior to public
and Recortmendation hearing
At least 10 days but not
E(sothp ublish Legal Act more than 25 days prior Normally in
A mendment Types) to hearing. same month
(PB 1St Wed.,
QPH near end
Staff and;Planning Board of month), but
Recommendation to BOCC —10 days prior to hearing can vary.
Quarterly Public Depends on BOCC desire.
Hearing, Decision can be night of
hearing or can be deferred.
Can also refer application back
BOCC Decision to Planning Board.
Note: This chart is meant as a graphical
representation of the UDO text;the text shall take
priority in any conflict or ambiguity.
Timeframe could potentially be
reduced to as low as—8 weeks after
application submittal. Current
timeframe is—4 months.
Timeline Example — Class A Special Use Permits 68
Special Use Application
Permit Submittal
Timeframe for Class A SUPS could
Staff Review/ potentially be reduced to as low as-10
Analysis Begins weeks after application submittal.
Current timeframe is—4-5 months.
Class B SUP: Schedule Class A SUP: Schedule NIM,
NIM, DAC & Board of DAC, Planning Board meeting &
Adjustment quasi-
judicial hearing BOCC quasi-judicial hearing
Post Sign &Mail Notice for Mail: min. 14 days
Post Sign &Mail Neighborhood'lnforrnation
g prior to meeting.
Notice for Meeting(NIM) & Planning
Board'meeting Sign: min. 10 days
Neighborhood ,
Information
Meeting (NIM)
Neighborhood Min. 45 days prior to
Infor'mat'ion Meeting public hearing
Neighborhood
Information Development
Meeting, Advisory
Committee(DAC) F5 weeks after submittal
,
Meeting
Development
Advisory
Committee(DAC)
Meeting, Planning Board'for ~7 weeks after submittal/
review and, ~3 weeks prior to public
rocorhmendation hearing
Normally
,cal Ad, Post in same
Sign&Mail Notice for
Public Hearing~ v-��s � ' ,�� �����<, Post � At least 10 days but not month PB
Sign,&Mail ce for more than 25 days Wed.,
Public Hearing° --° prior to hearing. PH near
end of
BOA holds quasi- month),
judicial hearing' BOCC holds cf asi- but can
Depends on outcome of
Judicial hearing at hearing. BOCC could vary.
quarterly piklic hearing° make a decision the night
Board of of the hearing, defer a
Adjustment decision to a later
decision BOCC decision
meeting date, or request
additional evidence and
Note: This chart is meant as a graphical representation of the continue the hearing to a
UDO text;the text shall take priority in any conflict or ambiguity. date/time certain.
Timeline Example — Zoning Atlas and UDO 69
Zoning s and Application
UDO Amendments � Submittal'
Zoning Atlas: Zoning Atlas: Text Amendments
Conditional !%; General Use
Districts Zoning Districts
Mail: min. 15 days Past Sign /Mall Natic±e for
prior to meeting. Neighborhood"Info.Meeting
(NIM) and Planning Board
Sign: min. 10 days Meetin ,
Min. 45 days prior Post Sign/Mall Notice Mail: min. 15 days
to public hearing Neighborhood for Planning Board prior to meeting.
Information Meeting Meeting, Sign: min. 10 days
Developmeht Advisory, ~2 weeks after
-4 weeks after submittal Committee Meeting submittal.
1 week prior to meeting Staff Recommendation to
Planning;Board 1 week prior to meeting
—7 weeks after submittal/ ^'4 weeks after submittal/
—3 weeks prior to public Planning Board Review ~3 weeks prior to public
and Recor7hmendation
hearing % hearing
At least 10 days but Atlas Amendments: Text At least 10 days but
not more than 25 Publish Legal Act Arnendm' eh s: not more than 25
days prior to j Post Sign Publish Legal Ad," days prior to
hearing. Mail Notice hearing.
Staff and PB Recommendation ^10 days prior to hearing
10 days prior to hearing to BOCC
Depends on BOCC desire. Quarterly Public Hearing, Depends on BOCC desire.
Decision can be night of Decision can be night of
hearing or can be deferred. hearing or can be deferred.
Can also refer application back BOCC Decision Can also refer application back
to Planning Board. to Planning Board.
Note: This chart is meant as a graphical representation of the
UDO text;the text shall take priority in any conflict or ambiguity.