Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> 1 Noes: <br /> 2 I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North <br /> 3 Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been carefully copied from the <br /> 4 recorded minutes of the Board of Commissioners for said County at a regular meeting of said <br /> 5 Board held on , said record having been made in the Minute Book of <br /> 6 the minutes of said Board, and is a true copy of so much of said proceedings of said Board as <br /> 7 relates in any way to the passage of the resolution described in said proceedings. <br /> 8 WITNESS my hand and the corporate seal of said County, this day of <br /> 9 , 2016. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Clerk to the Board of Commissioners <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan to inform the public about this extended <br /> 14 listing. <br /> 15 Bonnie Hammersley said she and the communications team would put out the <br /> 16 information. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 19 <br /> 20 5. Public Hearings <br /> 21 <br /> 22 a. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment— Recreational Land Uses - <br /> 23 Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) <br /> 24 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and <br /> 25 voted on a decision on text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) initiated <br /> 26 by the Planning Director to revise existing regulations governing the development of <br /> 27 recreational land uses. <br /> 28 Michael Harvey, Orange County Planning, said the Board of County Commissioners <br /> 29 (BOCC) will be receiving the Planning Board recommendation, and he would like to review what <br /> 30 this ordinance does and does not do. <br /> 31 Michael Harvey said this UDO amendment began in the spring of 2015, when staff <br /> 32 identified a need to revise the existing methodology by which recreation land uses are <br /> 33 classified. He said the existing ordinance was arcane, confusing, and very difficult to enforce. <br /> 34 He said this ordinance will provide a definitive line of demarcation between private recreational <br /> 35 amenities and recreational facilities. He said these types of activities are currently processed <br /> 36 through the review and approval of a Class B Special Use Permit (SUP), which are reviewed <br /> 37 and acted upon by the Orange County Board of Adjustment. He said this amended ordinance <br /> 38 is also an attempt to address long-standing issues with establishing development criteria for <br /> 39 certain identified recreational uses. He said the process and discussion was dominated by one <br /> 40 use specifically, which was the discharge of firearms from both a private and potential public <br /> 41 standpoint. <br /> 42 Michael Harvey said this ordinance eliminates the County's arcane and outdated <br /> 43 definitions; it establishes a more definitive methodology for staff to determine what constitutes <br /> 44 private and public recreation; it establishes guidelines for the discharge of firearms from both <br /> 45 private and public property; it establishes and incorporates regulations that were developed and <br /> 46 used by staff to address other recreational activities on private property, specifically motorized <br /> 47 go-carts; and it tries to provide a framework for individuals wishing to open and operate a public <br /> 48 recreational facility with definitive regulatory standards. <br /> 49 Michael Harvey said there are things that this ordinance does not do: it does not ban <br /> 50 shooting activities from private properties; it does not seek to regulate hunting; it does not <br />