Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br />3) Concern over posting of notice on property (absentee landowner- tenant removes posted <br />notice - landowner unaware of violation). <br />a. Ordinance allows for various methods of notice. The proposed Ordinance has been <br />amended to remove the posted notice requirement and to require the Zoning Officer <br />to attempt, in every case, to provide the violator with written notice of the violation <br />either in person or by certified mail. <br />4) In addressing violations that have ceased, yet re- occurs within two (2) years, what would <br />happen if the property were to be sold? How would the violation be handled? <br />a. The proposed Ordinance has been amended to state that a new notice is not <br />required when a notice of violation of the same kind /type has been issued to the <br />same violator. A new notice will be required if the property has been sold to an entity <br />different from the owner initially notified. <br />5) Concern over allowing Zoning Officer to make demand for civil penalties and in <br />settlement of monetary penalties. No public recourse to approach BOCC to discuss <br />violation or to give BOCC ability to allow for extensions of time limits to correct Zoning <br />Violations. Zoning Officer to provide recommendation to BOCC in such instances. <br />a. The BOCC currently makes demand for civil penalties under the current Zoning <br />Ordinance. The BOCC has to set the civil penalty under the current Zoning <br />Ordinance. The proposed change allows for the Zoning Officer to make demand for <br />payment and settle monetary penalties. The BOCC suggested allowance of <br />opportunity for public to address them by giving the BOCC responsibility for allowing <br />extensions of time limits to correct zoning violations. <br />b. The proposed Ordinance has been amended to allow the offender to' request a time <br />extension through the BOCC. <br />6) Question regarding raising the amount of civil penalty from $100 (Zoning Ordinance) and <br />$50 (Subdivision Regulations) to $500 in each Ordinance. <br />a. The rationale for the increase in the amount of the civil penalty is to provide another <br />tool to use to obtain compliance with the Ordinance /Regulations. <br />b. Staff proposes to keep the proposed civil penalty fine at $500 (Zoning Ordinance) <br />and increase civil penalty from $50 to $500 in the Subdivision Regulations so that <br />penalties will be consistent in both Ordinances. <br />7) Concern over Zoning Officer having discretion over settlement of claims regarding civil <br />penalties. <br />a. The civil penalty amount is set under the terms of the Ordinance. The Zoning Officer <br />will be allowed to determine at what point penalties begin. These are determined <br />during the notification period. Offender must be informed (during notification <br />process) of when penalties will begin. <br />B. Information /Issues at Ordinance Review Committee Meeting on April 2, 2003 <br />1) Concern regarding the need for requests for extension of time limits to correct violations <br />to be in writing. <br />a. Language has been added to state that Staff shall provide assistance in cases where <br />an individual is not able to provide written request for time extension. <br />