Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 57 <br /> 1 are currently not notified or given standing to speak at public hearings about SUP <br /> 2 proposals affecting their properties. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Please do not approve the proposed revisions of the UDO. Instead, I urge you to clarify and <br /> 5 expand the ways in which county residents may share concerns with County boards making <br /> 6 critical decisions about our communities. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Thank you, <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Laura Streitfeld <br /> 11 <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Proposed text amendments in agenda item #2: <br /> 14 (B) The Planning Director shall give P611910G notice of the date, time and place of the <br /> 15 public hearing to be held to receive ^^ ts, evidence in the form of 21 testimony and exhibits <br /> 16 pertaining to the application for a Special Use. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 (C) 'unh notino shall be p Micheal in a newspaper of general nirG Ja4inn in GraRge <br /> 19 <br /> 20 , <br /> 21 li i 0 i i 22 <br /> 22 <br /> 23 21 The Staff Attorney has suggested this language modification since SUP applications are <br /> 24 quasi-judicial in nature and require testimony rather than comments. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 22 The Staff Attorney has suggested that published newspaper advertisements for quarterly <br /> 27 public hearings not include SUP applications since the general public does not have standing in <br /> 28 such matters and cannot participate. (State Statutes require mailed and posted notice but do not <br /> 29 require legal ads for SUP applications). As shown in the remainder of this section, a notice <br /> 30 would be posted on the affected parcel and adjoining property owners would receive mailed <br /> 31 notification of the hearing date (in addition to mailed and posted notice of the Neighborhood <br /> 32 Information Meeting and Planning Board meeting). <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Commissioner Jacobs said he has often asked for a primer to be placed on the planning <br /> 35 website explaining this confusing process, and it has not been done. He asked if the other <br /> 36 Commissioners agreed with him, and the majority of the Board did so. <br /> 37 Commissioner Jacobs said he tried to read the Ordinance Review Committee minutes <br /> 38 but the link is broken. <br /> 39 Commissioner Jacobs said the new process makes it meaningless to have a Planning <br /> 40 Board caucus, for non-controversial items. He said the flip side is that if one or two <br /> 41 Commissioners have reservations about an issue, it can be referred back to the Planning Board. <br /> 42 Commissioner Jacobs said the question of distances in rural area has come up before in <br /> 43 the past. He said rural area impacts are different than urban and suburban impact. <br /> 44 Commissioner Jacobs asked if other commissioners agreed with him that staff should <br /> 45 look at different distances for rural and urban notifications, as long as it is legal. <br /> 46 Commissioner Burroughs said people expect to see a process run through the mill, and <br /> 47 the County's process is counterintuitive. She said this process extends the amount of notice for <br /> 48 neighborhood information meetings, allows the public to speak at Planning Board and Board of <br />