Agenda - 06-03-1996 - VIII-J - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

16 • approval to go ahead,but it lets the applicant know that something must done before the end of the twelve month period. It was noted that this is a common condition placed on every Special Use Permit. This amendment would place the standard in the ordinance so that it would not have to be placed on each permit as a condition. Reid expressed concern with what would be considered"commencing". Collins responded that there must be evidence that work has begun and proceding in a reasonable-period. Construction 4nust begin within that twelve month period. Reid continued expressing concern that it should be very clear and he felt that too much is left open to interpretation. Jobsis stated that the question from many of the Board members indicated the lack of a clear definition of "commenced"and"proceeded". Barrows expressed concern with the issue of burden of proof addressed in the County Attorney's letter. She felt specific information should be provided for citizens who are in opposition to some special use. They need to know how to prepare and present their opposition and evidence at the public hearing. Katz expressed concern that 8.2.2 b which refers specifically to value of contiguous property is being deleted. He felt this creates confusion and should also be better clarified by the County Attorney. Jobsis recommended that all of these issues be forwarded to the County Attorney for clarification. MOTION: Katz moved that this proposed amendment be tabled until such time as the County Attorney can be present to provide more information and clarity of the issues that have been voiced by Planning Board members in this discussion. Seconded by Allison. VOTE: Unanimous. (3) Article 23 Violations,Penalties,&Remedies Presentation by Jim Hinkley. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance provides for action which may be taken by the County to abate zoning violations or non-compliance with zoning requirements. Taking criminal action in the courts is not often used,but when it is,it is important that this remedy be effective. Although not specifically stated in Section 23.2,the maximum fine is fifty dollar($50.00). The maximum$50-fine upon conviction limits the effectiveness of the criminal action remedy. The proposed amendment would enable Orange County to increase the maximum fine to$500.00,as authorized by NC General Statute 14-4. The proposed amendment was presented at public hearing on February 26, 1996. No citizen comments were received.The proposed amendment was referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1996.