OCPB agenda 050317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 1, 2017 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), 8 Bingham Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 9 Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul 10 Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 11 12 Members Present: Kim Piracci, At-Large; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; 15 Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II. 16 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19 20 Lydia Wegman called meeting to order. 21 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – REORGANIZATION OF TABLES OF 24 PERMITTED USES 25 To continue review and discuss proposed amendments to the UDO that would reorganize the Tables of 26 Permitted Uses in response to the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision. As work progresses on this 27 item, which is expected for the September 2017 quarterly public hearing, the ORC will have additional 28 opportunities for review and comment. 29 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 30 31 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. 32 33 Craig Benedict: So we got something after 5 o’ clock today. I sent something back, so did Michael. And I used the analogy 34 Google Maps, there’s a few different ways to get there and I said, “Let’s make sure it doesn’t create toll on our sanity”. What 35 we hope at one point, and we’re not sure this is going to work, but this would collapse things that if sector 32, I’m not sure if 36 that’s manufacturing, but if we say sector 32 excluding asphalt, everything in here would be allowed, except for that and then 37 we don’t put any X’s there. That’d be a great collapsing of everything. And then, of course, we have the book that says what’s 38 in sector 32 but then everybody doesn’t have… So the important thing that Byrd was saying is you have to list what’s excluded 39 otherwise everything’s approved in there except that one. So maybe we can focus on a bridge version of this. But I think what 40 we need to do whether it’s this item or any other items, this roadmap on how to accomplish something. If there is two ways to 41 do it we’ll present that to the Commissioners, we’ll get advice from our attorney’s on which one they’re more comfortable with 42 before Michael and company go to this level of trying to figure out. You asked at one of the previous meetings so I’m sure 43 other Counties and cities are trying to do, and to varying degrees. Some of them are not at all and some of them say well sue 44 me when you get there. So instead of burdening you tonight with trying to figure out we’re going to get with the attorney’s and 45 try to keep some sort of compact solution to addressing the Byrd case. 46 47 Paul Guthrie: I’m one of the weirdo’s that read the case. And while the case is projected in a way that says what you’ve been 48 telling us it affirmed by that. The fact of the matter, the opinion is one of the most naïve opinions I’ve ever seen, in terms of the 49 case it was working with. Because it was working with a very simple project that a land owner next door didn’t like and so the 50 judge took it upon himself to rewrite the law, in language that was very difficult to overturn. So I agree. I think what you’re 51 going to do is terrific. I think, on a broader scale, you ought to talk to the Commissioners about talking to some of their 52 colleagues and get a little stir going on which way the state is going upon the ability to zone. And that will be a legislative 53 8