Agenda - 02-25-2013 - C2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

21 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 25, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. C.2 SUBJECT: Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance Text— Modify or Remove Regulations Related to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Comprehensive Plan /Future Land Use Map and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline Form (UDO /Zoning- 2013 -01) 2. Amendment Packet PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes INFORMATION CONTACT: John Roberts, County Attorney, 919 - 245 -2318 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 919- 245- 2592 Perdita Holtz, Planner III, 919 - 245 -2578 Michael Harvey, Planner III, 919 - 245 -2597 PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on Planning Director initiated text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance to incorporate changes to regulations related to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO). BACKGROUND: The County Attorney, through discussions with the attorneys for Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough, and a review of the recent Supreme Court decision in Lanvale Properties v. Cabarrus County, which struck down as unauthorized by law Cabarrus County's adequate public facilities ordinance, has determined that development regulations related to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance in Orange County and its municipalities should be amended. In August 2012 in the case of Lanvale Properties v. Cabarrus County the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down Cabarrus County's adequate public facilities ordinance ( "APFO ") Although the majority focused on the fee aspect of Cabarrus County's ordinance they struck down the entire ordinance, which included provisions for delaying construction until school facilities could meet development demand. In striking down the ordinance the Court held "Without expressing an opinion on the policy merits of APFOs, we stress that absent specific authority from the General Assembly, APFOs that effectively require developers to pay an adequate public facilities fee to obtain development approval are invalid as a matter of law." This holding appears to leave room for APFOs that do not impose a fee but rather delay development until such time as there are adequate school facilities to support the development (which is how orange County's ordinance is written) . However, the Supreme Court refused to consider a petition arguing that fact and asking the Court to modify its holding by severing the fee provision of the Cabarrus County APFO and allowing the other provisions to stand.