Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 56 <br /> 1 1 am writing to urge you not to approve the UDO text amendments proposed in agenda item #2 <br /> 2 at tonight's Quarterly Meeting. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 For the Orange County Citizens, opportunities to receive notice and raise questions <br /> 5 about Special Use Permit applications are limited. Please do not narrow these limited <br /> 6 opportunities further by amending the current SUP language, timelines and flow chart in the <br /> 7 UDO. The existing UDO requires advertising of SUP hearings in newspapers, a predictable <br /> 8 schedule of hearings at quarterly meetings, and a timeline to allow County residents to gather <br /> 9 resources and information, hire legal representation, and prepare for SUP hearings. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Tonight's proposal to revise the UDO in order to "streamline and speed up the <br /> 12 review/decision process" is hard to follow, and it is unclear how citizens may participate <br /> 13 at all in the SUP process. The faster, streamlined steps proposed tonight would significantly <br /> 14 reduce public participation of surrounding communities, and would benefit applicants at the <br /> 15 expense of surrounding property owners. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 The proposed changes would further curtail public participation in multiple ways: <br /> 18 • Shortening written notice to adjacent property owners from 15 to 10 days <br /> 19 • Eliminating advertising and public notice (see footnote 22 below) <br /> 20 • Eliminating joint BOCC and Planning Board quarterly public hearing for Class A SUP <br /> 21 applications, a forum which currently allows public comments and requires a quorum of <br /> 22 Planning Board members <br /> 23 • Eliminating the option for interested parties to comment on SUP applications (see <br /> 24 footnote 21 below) <br /> 25 • Requiring the Planning Board to make a recommendation without first receiving <br /> 26 comments from the public. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 The County's Special Use Permitting process benefits SUP applicants who have already <br /> 29 gathered the financial means to pursue a project, while presenting obstacles for County <br /> 30 residents without financial resources to hire an attorney in order to protect surrounding <br /> 31 properties. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 In addition to financial obstacles, rural communities in particular are hindered by <br /> 34 notification limits in time to make a difference in outcomes affecting their communities and <br /> 35 property. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Challenges limiting citizens' ability to oppose SUP project applications: <br /> 38 • Cost of representation —The cost of hiring a lawyer precludes many citizens from raising <br /> 39 valid concerns at a public hearing. At quasi-judicial hearings in which County lawyers <br /> 40 represent boards, County staff, and applicants with financial interest, this is a great <br /> 41 disadvantage for citizens. <br /> 42 • Notification limit—The 500-foot County notification limit does not accurately reflect the <br /> 43 wider scope of affected properties in rural zones with expanses of farms, woodlands, <br /> 44 and waterways. Whether the project is an airport, kennel, shooting range or special <br /> 45 event center, its impact of safety, light, noise, traffic and property values extend well <br /> 46 beyond a tenth of a mile. <br /> 47 500 feet does not allow neighbors who would experience impacts to be notifies or have <br /> 48 standing to speak at a hearing. Neighbors more than 500 feet from an SUP applicant <br />