Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
98 <br />Issues Summary Ircadons are <br />of an application by the town does not begin unfit after a formal determination that the application is complete. App' <br />`complete" when they contain all the relevant and appropriate application submittal requirements and the required fee. Since e <br />Ircation is made by the town's professional staff, appeals of completeness decisions <br />determination of what constitutes a `complete" app' <br />would be taken to the board of adjustment <br />Typically, town staff should need no more than five working days to review and make such a "completeness" determination. The <br />provision also establishes rules for a deficient application, including a specified period within which a revised appliwfion must be <br />inbomplete applicadonsdaresubmitted to determulGple def cientsubmittalsor requiring re-submittal fees after a certain number of <br />Include Public Hearing Procedures <br />Another technique many communities are using to clarify and make the development review process more prdcedurally efficient is to <br />include abasic set of rules in the code for the way development applications subject to a public hearing are governed. These provisions <br />normally spell out the rules governing the conduct of the public hearing, including what persons have the right to speak, the order of <br />the proceedings at the public hearing (how the application is to be presented, in what order the applicant and public can speak, and <br />the process for responding to comments), how and under what circumstances testimony and evidence can be excluded, what findings <br />must be made to support the decision, and how requests for a continuance are handled. These kinds of specifics can fie included <br />either in the UDO or in an accompanying administrative manual. <br />CLARIFY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES <br />Clarify Decision-Making Bodies <br />Currently, review responsibilities for various permit and approval types are scattered in provisions throughout the current zoning <br />ordinance. We recommend the new UDO provide a unified section in the Administration article clearly setting forth die powers, <br />duties, authority, and role of each advisory and decision-making board or person responsible for undertaking development review in <br />the town. It is our experience that provisions such as these help establish clear lines of authority for the review of development in the <br />code. <br />We also suggest the town consider streamlining and clarifying several of the existing development review procedures by: (1) a mg <br />several new procedures; (2) consolidating several review procedures; and t3) codifying review procedures that are being applied in <br />practice but are not in the existing regulations. <br />The following table summarizes how the development review structure is proposed to work in the new UDO. One proposed <br />departure from the current code is the site plan process. It is recommended the town amend the site plan procedure to recognize two <br />e size, or location of a proposed use), and that review authority be modified to <br />different levels of site plan review (based on the typ , <br />help streamline the review process. <br />Hillsborough, Norlh Carolina <br />Unified Development Ordinance 1 Draft Novemebeo2009 <br />Page 8 <br />