Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price for <br /> the Board to close the Public Hearing. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> b. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment— Sexually Oriented Businesses <br /> - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) <br /> The Board considered receiving the Planning Board recommendation, closing the <br /> public hearing, and making a decision on text amendments to the Unified Development <br /> Ordinance (UDO) initiated by the Planning Director to adopt regulations governing the <br /> development of sexually oriented businesses. <br /> Michael Harvey, Orange County Planning Supervisor, said this item is a continuation of <br /> the public hearing, and noted the abstract contained the UDO outline form in attachment one; <br /> excerpts from the Quarterly Public Hearing (QPH) and the Planning Board; a Planning Board <br /> statement of consistency; and a proposed text amendment. <br /> Michael Harvey said current zoning regulations do not establish locational criteria for <br /> sexually oriented businesses and are actually prohibited. He said this prohibition is <br /> inconsistent with state law which states this as a land use that can be regulated but not <br /> prohibited. He said the proposed text amendment seeks to establish locational criteria and <br /> allowable general use zoning districts. <br /> Michael Harvey said the recommendation is to allow sexually oriented businesses in the <br /> industrial medium and heavy intensity districts, specifically 1-2 and 1-3. He said the setback <br /> standards are designed to protect identified secondary sensitive uses such as schools, <br /> libraries, single family residences, and daycares from the impacts that can occur from sexually <br /> oriented businesses being located in a given area. He referred to several studies that support <br /> the need for these setbacks. <br /> Michael Harvey referred to page 7 of attachment 1, noting an inconsistency brought <br /> forward. He said it was initially stated that there are no properties in the County zoned 1-2 or I- <br /> 3, but this is not accurate, and appropriate properties have since been located. <br /> Commissioner Price said there seems to be inconsistency on page 48 and asked if <br /> adult cabarets are allowed. <br /> Michael Harvey said yes. <br /> Commissioner Price said if they are allowed then page 45 is inconsistent, as it states <br /> that the sale and consumption of alcohol is banned on the premises of an adult cabaret. <br /> Michael Harvey said it is not inconsistent and the County chose to voluntarily <br /> recommend a prohibition on the consumption of alcohol. <br /> Commissioner Price clarified that alcohol is going to be banned in a bar. <br /> Michael Harvey said no, that alcohol would be banned in an adult cabaret which is the <br /> County's right by state law. <br /> Michael Harvey said Commissioner Dorosin brought up this same concern during the <br /> QPH, and he gave Commissioner Dorosin the same answer that there does not have to be a <br /> regulation banning the consumption of alcohol, but it is the recommendation. <br /> Commissioner Price referred to page 49, which addresses adult motels. She said this <br /> seems absurd. <br /> Michael Harvey said there are provisions in state laws that are not sane and the goal <br /> here is to provide a definitional framework for what could constitute an adult motel versus <br /> trying to reclassify motels throughout the County. <br /> Commissioner Price said her only remaining concern is the issue of alcohol. <br />