OCPB agenda 080217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 DRAFT SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 5, 2017 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township 8 Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Randy Marshall, At-Large; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; 9 Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 11 Members Present: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township 12 Representative; Donna Coffey, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 13 Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; 16 Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II. 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Rachel McCook, Minutes Preparer 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – REORGANIZATION OF TABLES OF 21 PERMITTED USES 22 To continue review and discuss proposed amendments to the UDO that would reorganize the Tables of 23 Permitted Uses in response to the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision. 24 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 25 26 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. He reported that the Table of Permitted Uses and corresponding text amendments 27 have just been revised for the ninth time and that Staff has made significant progress. James Bryan, County Attorney’s Office, 28 has provided Planning Staff with comments, the majority of which are easily addressable. Michael reminded members of the 29 Committee that Planning Staff is collapsing all three tables into one Table of Permitted Uses, which is a commonsense move 30 from when the Table was created in 2011. Additionally, in previous discussions, the problem of calling a category such as 31 Retail by three different names in three different tables could expose the County to a lawsuit. The aim is to fix this problem 32 overall. Michael pointed to the first land use category to be reviewed in the Table of Permitted Uses: Agricultural Use (see 33 exclamation point symbol next to the category in the Table of Permitted Uses in ORC meeting materials). The proposed 34 change is a nomenclature change to identify or provide addition identification for land uses that have to abide by specific land 35 use criteria. Article 5 in the UDO has buffers, setbacks and other requirements and limitations, so Planning Staff is coming up 36 with a methodology that helps readers understand that there is further reading they have to do. The County Attorney’s Office 37 has not provided comments on that point, but they have asked Planning Staff to review the use of special symbology and 38 recommended that it be collapsed. Even though Staff may be using a different symbol than an exclamation point, there is 39 going to be a symbol in the Table of Permitted Uses to identify those categories that have special regulatory standards 40 associated with their development. The next area to review is definitions for land use categories. See the 41 Automotive/Transportation category. Planning Staff was identifying uses that were not specifically listed that could be allowed 42 in certain districts with a Special Use Permit (i.e. Automotive/Transportation Uses Not Listed Herein !). The County Attorney’s 43 most recent opinion on this category is that it will not withstand legal challenge, even with appropriate standards, and has 44 asked that it be deleted. So, there will no longer be a “catchall” category for any land use category. Planning Staff is working 45 with the County Attorney to ensure definitions pass legal sufficiency muster and capture activities that are encouraged in 46 association with the category. 47 48 Paul Guthrie remarked that Planning Staff is essentially creating a defacto “other” category. 49 50 Michael Harvey responded that based on James Bryan’s opinion as of a week ago, they are prohibited from having an “other” 51 or “catchall” category. 52 53 Tony Blake asked if that premise applies to all the land use categories. 54 Attachment 3 123