Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-05-2013 - 6c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2013
>
Agenda - 11-05-2013 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 11-05-2013 - 6c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2015 1:59:54 PM
Creation date
11/4/2013 10:27:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/5/2013
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6c
Document Relationships
Minutes 11-05-2013
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2013
ORD-2013-044 Ordinance amending UDO Related to Holding a Neighborhood Information Meeting for Govermental Uses
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
37 <br />Attachment 6 <br />ORANGE COUNTY ut"t P.O. BOX 8181 <br />Office of the County 200 S. CAMERON STREET Attorney HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 <br />TO: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor <br />FROM: James C. Bryan, Staff Attorney <br />DATE: October 1, 2013 <br />RE: Proposed Amendment for Governmental Uses Requiring Neighborhood Meetings <br />This memorandum is written in response to questions raised by the Board of County <br />Commissioners at the last Quarterly Public Hearing. The Board requested the answers be made <br />available to the Planning Board during their consideration of the matter. <br />Is this proposed amendment preempted by state law because the use is designated as <br />"permitted by right" by the Unified Development Ordinance? <br />No, the proposed amendment would not be preempted by state law. <br />Counties are authorized to enact zoning ordinances by NCGS § 153A -340. Through the general <br />grant of authority and express restrictions (e.g. bona fide farms, manufactured homes, etc.), the <br />County enjoys significant flexibility in the creation of a local zoning ordinance. <br />The proposed amendment would not alter the current rights of the property owners. If a <br />particular use (such as "governmental use ") is proposed, the amendment merely adds <br />administrative burdens, but does not create a basis for refusal. This would be akin to having an <br />expanded application or increased permit fee. There would be no opportunity for refusal of the <br />right other than non - compliance with the administrative process which would include holding the <br />neighborhood meeting. <br />State and municipal jurisdictions must comply with the zoning as long as there is any building or <br />structure involved. See § 153A -347. Vehicular parking areas, passive recreation parks and <br />wetlands mitigation sites are typical examples of land uses exempt from zoning. Note that this <br />applies only to general use districts and that land owned by the state may not be placed in an <br />overlay or special /conditional use district except upon approval of the Council of State. Federal <br />preemption could apply depending on specific projects. <br />Are Volunteer Fire Departments otherwise exempt from zoning ordinances? <br />Volunteer Fire Departments are not otherwise specifically exempted from local zoning <br />ordinances. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.