Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
10 <br /> 1 a problem over the years. She said there is not a problem with Planning Board members <br /> 2 having access to information since these meetings are web streamed and she would assume <br /> 3 that Board members would take their positions seriously and review the meeting if they did not <br /> 4 attend. She said a quorum should not be required. <br /> 5 Commissioner Pelissier said some of the comments that were written today in a letter to <br /> 6 the Board of County Commissioners (see below)were confusing. She said there should be a <br /> 7 flow chart to separate the two processes: quasi-judicial versus legislative. She said it should be <br /> 8 reiterated that public comment is not being eliminated in the quasi-judicial items, as public <br /> 9 comment was never allowed in these items. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 September 8, 2015 <br /> 12 <br /> 13 To the Orange County Commissioners: <br /> 14 <br /> 15 1 am writing to urge you not to approve the UDO text amendments proposed in agenda item #2 <br /> 16 at tonight's Quarterly Meeting. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 For the Orange County Citizens, opportunities to receive notice and raise questions <br /> 19 about Special Use Permit applications are limited. Please do not narrow these limited <br /> 20 opportunities further by amending the current SUP language, timelines and flow chart in the <br /> 21 UDO. The existing UDO requires advertising of SUP hearings in newspapers, a predictable <br /> 22 schedule of hearings at quarterly meetings, and a timeline to allow County residents to gather <br /> 23 resources and information, hire legal representation, and prepare for SUP hearings. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Tonight's proposal to revise the UDO in order to "streamline and speed up the <br /> 26 review/decision process" is hard to follow, and it is unclear how citizens may participate <br /> 27 at all in the SUP process. The faster, streamlined steps proposed tonight would significantly <br /> 28 reduce public participation of surrounding communities, and would benefit applicants at the <br /> 29 expense of surrounding property owners. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 The proposed changes would further curtail public participation in multiple ways: <br /> 32 • Shortening written notice to adjacent property owners from 15 to 10 days <br /> 33 • Eliminating advertising and public notice (see footnote 22 below) <br /> 34 • Eliminating joint BOCC and Planning Board quarterly public hearing for Class A SUP <br /> 35 applications, a forum which currently allows public comments and requires a quorum of <br /> 36 Planning Board members <br /> 37 • Eliminating the option for interested parties to comment on SUP applications (see <br /> 38 footnote 21 below) <br /> 39 • Requiring the Planning Board to make a recommendation without first receiving <br /> 40 comments from the public. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 The County's Special Use Permitting process benefits SUP applicants who have already <br /> 43 gathered the financial means to pursue a project, while presenting obstacles for County <br /> 44 residents without financial resources to hire an attorney in order to protect surrounding <br /> 45 properties. <br /> 46 <br />