Agenda - 05-27-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

COMMENTS ON ZONiNO ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS CONSOLIDATION OF ARTICLES 7 AND 8 Prepared by Alice M. Darden - May 27, 1986 Background information As we all know,zonings and rezonings are a legislative function which allow some discretion on the part of the governing body. In the case of reamings the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate a need for change,and the application can be denied if a persuasive case is not made. Especially in the absence ore public facilities ordinance,the judgment of the governing body on the wisdom of a rezoning is crucial. It is also important to note that It is at the zoning/rezoning stage that the basic land use decisions are implemented. In the case of special use permits,on the other hand,the basic land use decisions have been made and implemented. Thus,a permit is only necessary to insure the proper development of uses which require special care in their location and methods of operation. Theref ore,if all the conditions of the ordinance are met in a quasi-judicial hearing, the permit must be granted. Under current Orange County regulations,a planned development is essentially e rezoning to a specific use or set of uses. The basic rezoning decision is made in this process,and then the specification of the particular use(s) is accomplished through the issuance of a special use permit. This'conditional use zoning'method is utilized because it is not possible to attach conditions to a general rezoning. Under the current ordinance, Article 7("Planned Development Districts"), contains the standards of evaluation for Planned Development Districts and thus the basic standards for this type of rezoning decision(sections 7.4 and subsections 7.4.1, 7.4.2, 7.4.3). Also included in Article 7 are the descriptions of the regulations and requirements for the different types of planned development districts,such as "Planned Development Housing Districts"and "Planned Development Commercial Districts" (sections 7.14.7.15, 7.16, 7.17,7.18 and associated subsections). Articles 7 and it From my study of the proposed changes as contained in the May 13 Planning Board packet, the proposed Article 7 contains very few specifications of standards apart from the reference to the requirement for a special use permit. As you know,the current ordinance includes the standards in Article 7 and references them in Article 8. Thus the proposed "consolidation" transfers practically all of the standards of evaluation for Planned Development Districts,along with specific requirements and regulations for each type of district,from Article 7(Planned Development Districts) to Article 8(Special Uses). It seems to me that this transfer of standards from Article 7 to Article 8 may tend to remove the standards by which the crucial rezoning decision is to be made,or at least divert attention from the important rezoning decision. By inclusion of the planned development district standards in Article 7,the current ordinance foams attention on the rezoning decision in the creation of those districts,and utilizes the special use permit as a mechanism for allowing particular uses to be specified. The proposed ordinance,on the other hand,leevesArticle 7 a shell of its former self and almost makes planned developments(PDs)seem like just another kind of special use. To the extent that PDs just require another type of special use permit,then to that Went the discretion of the governing body to make a reaming decision has been lost. As far as I know,the current Planned Development District has not been tested in the courts. It seems to me that the transfer of standards,even if not a problem for the Commis- sioners,might lead in the courts toe test of Planned Development Districts utilizing special use permit rulings as the relevant precedent,as opposed to judging them using rezoning cases. All things considered,it would seem that the proposed consolidation is too problematic to be enacted,especially since there does not seem to be much gained by the transfer of standards.