Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 <br /> 1 Purpose of Work Session <br /> 2 • To discuss whether the existing public hearing process for UDO/Zoning matters should <br /> 3 be revised <br /> 4 • If so, give staff direction on what the process should be <br /> 5 • Any revisions must be brought forward as a UDO text amendment at a quarterly public <br /> 6 hearing <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Recent History <br /> 9 • Reviewed in last half of 2014 and discussed extensively by Planning Board and BOCC <br /> 10 • Original impetus: <br /> 11 o Remove the Planning Board as an official board at the public hearing (e.g., do <br /> 12 not require a quorum of Planning Board members) <br /> 13 o Increase the frequency of public hearings (currently held 4 times per year on <br /> 14 dates specifically set aside only for public hearings) <br /> 15 Other discussion through process: <br /> 16 o Allow the public to make comments at the end of the process, not just at the <br /> 17 formal public hearing <br /> 18 ➢ Will require a text amendment to the UDO which stipulates only written <br /> 19 comments can be made after the formal public hearing <br /> 20 ➢ If pursued, should be allowed only for legislative items, not quasi-judicial <br /> 21 items (e.g., Special Use Permits) <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Legislative vs. Quasi-Judicial <br /> 24 If revisions are made, staff recommends two slightly different processes given the <br /> 25 different legal requirements <br /> 26 o Legislative decisions can be discussed by decision makers outside of the formal <br /> 27 public hearing with anyone who has an opinion <br /> 28 o Quasi-judicial decisions are not to be discussed outside of the formal hearing (ex <br /> 29 parte communication) and sworn testimony by experts is required <br /> 30 ➢ Non-expert opinions are considered hearsay and cannot be the basis of a <br /> 31 decision <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Possible Process Flow Charts <br /> 34 • Included in agenda materials along with remarks regarding each possible process <br /> 35 • Primary differences from existing process: <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Differences from Existing Process <br /> 38 Planning Board would make a recommendation prior to the public hearing <br /> 39 o Planning Board could request BOCC send item back to the Planning Board after <br /> 40 the public hearing <br /> 41 o BOCC could choose to send an item back to the Planning Board after the public <br /> 42 hearing <br /> 43 Public hearing would be closed the night of the hearing <br /> 44 o Written comments after the hearing would no longer be required <br /> 45 o At conclusion of hearing BOCC could: <br /> 46 ➢ Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date (items would no longer be <br /> 47 listed on the public hearing portion of the later BOCC agenda and the <br /> 48 public could make oral comments) <br /> 49 ➢ Refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review <br />