HomeMy WebLinkAboutORC agenda 050218
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004)
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Ordinance Review Committee Meeting – ~ 8:15 pm
(immediately following the regular Planning Board meeting)
Note: This is a meeting of the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) for Planning Board members
who would like to review and comment on proposed amendments before the items are formally
considered by the Planning Board. Attendance is not mandatory and a quorum is not necessary for
meetings of the ORC.
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. 2 - 7
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS –
REORGANIZATION OF TABLES OF PERMITTED USES - To continue review
and discussion on proposed amendments to the UDO that would
reorganize the Tables of Permitted Uses in response to the Byrd v.
Franklin County judicial decision and modify other sections to ensure
consistency within the ordinance.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
3. ADJOURNMENT
1
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 2, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments – Permitted Use
Table
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1.UDO Amendment Outline Form Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575
PURPOSE: To provide an update on Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) text amendments revising the tables of permitted uses and development standards as
contained in Article 5 of the UDO.
BACKGROUND: As the Board may recall this project was initiated in 2016 to address the
findings of the State Supreme Court in Byrd versus Franklin County related to the delineation of
prohibited land uses. Planning staff and the County’s Attorney Office have determined existing
permitted use table(s) need to be modified to ensure compliance with the aforementioned court
case clarifying allowable/prohibited land uses. Amendments are also necessary to address
issues associated with uniformity on how land uses are identified and defined within the UDO.
For more background information please refer to Attachment 1.
The Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) has reviewed this item at several
ORC meetings beginning in January of 2017. Agenda materials from these various meetings
can be viewed at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning_and_inspections/orange_county_plannin
g_board_(pb).php#.
In August of 2017 the BOCC held a work session with Planning staff and the County’s Attorney
office to review the status of this project. At this work session staff was supplied with the
following direction:
1.The BOCC did not want an ‘exhaustive’ list of land uses within the table instead
requesting staff and the attorney work to collapse uses into single land use categories.
Staff was asked to reduce the overall size and complexity of the table of permitted uses.
STAFF COMMENT: Originally staff was tasked with providing an ‘exhaustive’ list
of land uses to address concerns from the Planning Director, Director of Economic
Development, and BOCC members over ensuring developers were able to ‘verify’
a proposed land use was specifically listed as being permitted within the County.
Approximately 7 months of work was involved in achieving this goal.
2
2
2. Where feasible combine land uses into single categories. For example it was suggested
multiple references to:
a. Hotel/Motel,
b. Lodging Units, and
c. Rural Guest Establishment(s) (i.e. bed and breakfast, bed and breakfast inn,
country inn)
Be collapsed into a central land use category versus 3 separate categories.
3. Review existing definitions to eliminate the reliance on including ‘example land uses’ with
respect to outlining what constitutes a permitted land use within that category.
4. Consolidate and eliminate duplicative references to regulations within the UDO. For
example under Section 5.8.4 Schools: Elementary, Middle, and Secondary there are
numerous references to ‘what information’ has to be submitted for the processing of the
Class A Special Use Permit application. This information is already contained in Section
2.7 and does not need to be repeated multiple times throughout the UDO.
Based on previous comments/recommendations, as well as direction from the BOCC, staff has
completed the following:
a. Collapsing existing tables as contained in Section(s) 5.2.1 (general use zoning
districts), 5.2.2 (EDD general use zoning districts), and 5.2.3 (Conditional Zoning
districts) into a centralized permitted use table.
b. Collapse similar land uses into single categories.
c. Eliminate the ‘exhaustive’ list of land uses, relying on definitions to outline what
constitutes an acceptable land use. Please note if there is a specific land use staff
is recommending not be permitted, same is listed with no corresponding
designation denoting which general use zoning district it can be developed within.
d. Modification of Article 5 Uses of the UDO to incorporate development standards
and evaluation criteria for various land uses.
e. Modification of Article 10 Definitions of the UDO to incorporate new and/or revised
definitions of various land uses consistent with the proposed new table.
f. Incorporate modifications to the Economic Development Hillsborough (EDH)
districts as recommended by the BOCC late in 2016. This included expanded
allowable land uses within the various EDH general use zoning districts.
Staff will provide examples of the new formatting at the ORC meeting illustrating the new
methodology. ORC review will continue at the July 11, 2018 meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding
for the provision of County services. Existing staff, included in the Departmental staffing budget,
will accomplish the work required to process this amendment.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board receive the
update and provide additional feedback to staff on the proposed amendment(s) and revised
review schedule.
3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning-2016-05
Amendment(s) to permitted use tables clarifying permitted and prohibited land uses.
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
Future Land Use Map:
From:
To:
Zoning Map:
From:
To:
Other:
Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Text:
Section(s):
UDO Text:
UDO General Text Changes
UDO Development Standards
UDO Development Approval Processes
Section(s): Section(s)
1. Article 5 Uses,
2. 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.2.3 Tables of Permitted Uses,
3. Section 6.9.7 Parking Standards, and
4. Article 10 Definitions
References throughout the UDO will be updated as a result of this
amendment.
Other:
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has
Attachment 1 4
initiated text amendments to clarify allowable and prohibited land uses within the
various general use zoning districts throughout the County.
These amendments are in response to recent court decisions, most notably action by
the State Supreme Court in Byrd versus Franklin County, placing the onus on local
governments to have sufficient specificity ‘spelling out’ allowable and prohibited land
uses.
The outline form was originally reviewed and approved by the BOCC at its May 5,
2016 regular meeting and updated at the November 1, 2016 meeting.
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
‘cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis,
prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of
County Commissioners’.
In November of 2015 the State Supreme Court in Byrd versus Franklin County
rejected arguments that the mere omission/listing of a particular land use within a
table of permitted uses constituted a prohibition of same. The Court stated: ‘…. law
favors uninhibited free use of private property over government restrictions’. A copy
of the Court’s ruling in the Franklin County case can be viewed at:
https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=33680.
The amendment is intended to:
a. Collapse existing tables in Section(s) 5.2.1 through 5.2.3 (i.e. general use, EDD
general use, and Conditional Zoning) into a centralized table,
b. Clarify the list of non-residential and residential land uses permitted/prohibited
within Orange County,
c. Incorporate amendments associated with the Hillsborough Economic
Development District originally reviewed at the September 12, 2016 quarterly
public hearing, and
d. Update Article(s) 5 Uses and 10 Definitions as necessary to reflect proposed
modifications as necessary.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and/or
incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals.
Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open,
efficient, and responsive.
4. New Statutes and Rules
The amendment(s) are in response to a 2015 court decision, Byrd versus Franklin
5
County, as detailed herein.
C. PROCESS
a. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
May 5, 2016 and November 1, 2016
b. Public Hearing
November 1, 2018 (tentative)
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
November 1, 2016 – Approval of revised UDO Amendment Outline Form
January 4, February 1, May 3, July 5, 2017; May 2 and July 11, 2018 – Planning
Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meeting (BOCC receives agenda
materials)
d. Development Advisory Committee (DAC)
e. Legal Sufficiency Determination
f. Other
b. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements
a. Planning Board Review:
January 4, February 1, May 3, July 5, 2017; May 2 and July 11, 2018 – Ordinance
Review Committee (ORC)
September 5, 2018 – Recommendation
b. Advisory Boards:
N/A
c. Local Government Review:
Staff shall transmit the proposed
amendment(s) to the Towns of Chapel
Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough for
January 5, February 1, May 3, and July 6, 2017 – Initial Review(s)
August 2 and 16, 2018 – Final Review
To be determined
N/A
6
JPA and courtesy review in July of
2018.
d. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement for the public hearing shall be in accordance with the
provisions of the UDO.
e. Outreach:
c. 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 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
The amendment will provide additional clarity on permitted and prohibited land uses.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Will be provided at meeting.
Primary Staff Contact:
Michael D. Harvey
Planning
(919) 245-2597
mharvey@orangecountync.gov
General Public: Staff will schedule an open house meeting to solicit public
comment on the proposal in July of 2018. Advertisement of
this meeting shall be coordinated with the Manager’s office.
Small Area Plan Workgroup:
Other:
7