Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br /> proposing to initiate text amendments to clarify allowable and prohibited land uses <br /> within the various general use zoning districts throughout the County. <br /> These amendments are in response to recent court decisions, most notably action by <br /> the State Supreme Court in Byrd versus Franklin County, placing the onus on local <br /> governments to have sufficient specificity `spelling out' allowable and prohibited land <br /> uses. <br /> 2. Analysis <br /> As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: <br /> `cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, <br /> prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of <br /> County Commissioners'. <br /> Section(s) 5.2.1 through 5.2.3 of the UDO contains the table of permitted uses <br /> spelling out allowable land uses. In many instances the table contains broad land <br /> use categories, such as Recreational Facilities or Sexually Oriented Businesses, <br /> intended to represent multiple, individual, land uses. When a development proposal <br /> is submitted, staff ascertains if the use is either: <br /> a. Specifically listed (i.e. single-family residence, church, restaurant, etc.) <br /> or <br /> b. Falls into an established land use category (i.e. a baseball field open to the <br /> public would be classified as a Recreational Facilities). <br /> and processes the request accordingly. If the proposed use is not specifically listed, <br /> or is determined to be inconsistent with existing land use categories, it is considered <br /> prohibited. <br /> In November of 2015 the State Supreme Court in Byrd versus Franklin County <br /> rejected the argument that the mere omission/listing of a particular land use within a <br /> table of permitted uses constituted a prohibition of same. The Court stated: `.... law <br /> favors uninhibited free use of private property over government restrictions'. A copy <br /> of the Court's ruling in the Franklin County case can be viewed <br /> at: https://appellate.nccourts.orq/opinions/?c=1&pdf=33680. <br /> In reviewing this decision, staff and the Attorney's office have determined <br /> modifications to the County's land use regulations are necessary. The amendment <br /> seeks to: <br /> i. Clarify prohibited land uses, <br /> ii. Provide specificity for existing land use categories making it easier to <br /> identify what land uses are allowed within them, <br /> iii. Establish the `factors/criteria' staff considers when making a determination <br /> if a proposed land use is consistent, and <br /> iv. Ensure uniformity within the individual tables (i.e. a retail operation is not <br /> listed/defined differently in the various general use zoning districts). <br /> Taking these steps will provide more clarity for landowners and staff with respect to <br /> allowable and prohibited uses as well as make the regulations more legally <br /> 2 <br />