Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br /> <br /> <br />A-6 <br /> <br />Lengthened the process. Why didn’t County Attorney review occur concurrent with staff <br />review? Streamline. <br />55. A time-line chart for each land-use review process (re-zoning, subdivision, permits, <br />landuse amendments etc.) should be made showing who reviews each step and when. <br />56. Identify time lags and the reason - such as delays caused by review board’s schedules. <br />57. Identify how approval processes can be simple, efficient, and short. <br />58. Examine other review and approval processes such as Durham’s Development Advisory <br />Committee (DAC) and Design District Review Team (DDRT) which are efficient and <br />streamlined. <br />59. The members of the above DAC and DDRT are similar to Orange County’s <br />Development Advisory Committee (DAC) but have Rules of Procedure, meetings, <br />minutes and quorum requirements consistent with state Statutes. This could replace our <br />current review approval processes when a rezoning application meets all applicable <br />standards. <br /> <br />COMMUNICATION <br /> <br />60. Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should add this as an <br />expectation or requirement. <br />61. As people become accustomed to this new document it will be important to provide <br />different kinds of helpful guidance for users to find the sections of the document that are <br />pertinent to their needs. The “Comparative Table” is quite helpful, and is an example of <br />the guidance that will be needed during the transition. Having some kind of on-line <br />search mechanism would be helpful. Perhaps that is already under development. <br />62. At what point in time will we define metrics of whether the UDO is succeeding? <br />63. It would be really nice if the final document could be accessed and indexed electronically <br />rather than printed, a hyperlink format. For instance, clicking on a term and the definition <br />pops up. <br />64. Identifying Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to UDO updates <br /> <br />FORMATTING / CLARIFICATION <br /> <br />65. No mention of Town of Hillsborough interlocal agreement. Add a footnote or a new <br />section. [Note: references to the Orange County-Hillsborough Interlocal Agreement <br />should be added when Zoning/UDO-related items are formally adopted. At this point, <br />neither a joint land use plan nor joint development regulations have been adopted]. <br />66. Section 1.6.2 (A), Is a 1-year hiatus long enough? <br />67. Section 1.7.2, "Agriculture" should be mentioned somewhere within the discussion of <br />elements. <br />68. Section 2.2.7 (C), Why treat withdrawal of an application as denial? <br />69. Section 2.2.8 (A), Shouldn't have to wait a year if withdrawn. 6-months for withdrawal <br />and 1-year for denial? <br />49