Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
M <br />sections. <br />Staff Response: The County Attorney's office suggested edits to be made to correct <br />concerns about legal sufficiency and those edits have been incorporated into the <br />proposed text. <br />2. A BOCC member asked about how conditional zoning fits into the program and <br />expressed concern with uses developed as part of the Conditional Zoning process <br />and what happens if project cannot meet established standards. <br />Staff Response: A new conditional zoning district (ASE -CZ) is being proposed for <br />Agricultural Support uses. The requirements of the UDO would have to be met in <br />order to obtain a permit and the use would have to keep operating under the <br />conditions of the permit. A use that does not keep operating under the conditions of <br />the permit and other UDO requirements would have zoning enforcement taken to <br />correct any deficiencies. <br />3. A BOCC member asked why the R -1 (Rural Residential) zoning district was not <br />having ASE uses added to it. <br />Staff Response: As has been explained in Footnote #8 in the amendment package, <br />the stated purpose of the R -1 zoning district is to provide for rural non -farm residential <br />development. Because of the emphasis on non -farm development, Planning staff <br />believes adding farming - related uses to the R -1 zoning district would be inconsistent <br />with the stated purpose of the district. Farms currently located in the R -1 zoning <br />district that desire to add ASE - related uses can either apply to have their property <br />rezoned to AR (Agricultural Residential) or can apply for the new ASE -CZ zoning <br />district. <br />4. A BOCC member asked if looking at conditional zoning districts on a case -by -case <br />basis is OK or whether it would create legal problems. <br />Staff Response: The Staff Attorney answered that the conditional zoning district is <br />legally sufficient. Further Planning Staff Comment: This question seems to arise <br />from past concerns by this BOCC member about avoiding "spot zoning," which <br />occurs when a particular piece of property is zoned differently (in a general use <br />district) from surrounding or nearby property. It should be noted that spot zoning is <br />legally defendable if it is done consistent with a Comprehensive Plan. To require <br />otherwise would mean that local governments could not effect land use changes <br />through rezonings because no property could be zoned differently from nearby <br />property. Spot zoning is not legally defensible if a rezoning is not consistent with a <br />jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Regardless, case law has decided that <br />conditional zoning does not constitute spot zoning. Spot zoning is applicable to <br />general use zoning districts. <br />5. A BOCC expressed concern about water issues and the proposed text that will <br />require higher water users to complete a groundwater study when other types of uses <br />are not required to complete studies. <br />Staff Response: The Staff Attorney stated this was a policy issue and did not create <br />a legal problem. Further Planning Staff Comment: The requirement for a <br />groundwater study for uses expected to be high water users was added to the ASE <br />