Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
ORANGE COUNTY <br />PLANNING BOARD <br />ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br /> Meeting Date: August 2, 2017 <br /> Action Agenda <br /> Item No. 7 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments – Subdivisions <br /> <br />DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections <br /> <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: <br />1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified <br />Development Ordinance (UDO) <br />Amendment Outline Form <br />2. Excerpt of Draft July 5, 2017 Ordinance <br />Review Committee (ORC) Notes <br />3. Statement of Consistency <br />4. UDO Text Amendment <br />Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577 <br />Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 <br />Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 <br /> <br />PURPOSE: To review and comment upon a Planning Director initiated Unified Development <br />Ordinance (UDO) text amendments revising regulations associated with the process of <br />subdivisions. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND: At the November 21, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing staff presented a UDO <br />text amendment package proposing modification of existing subdivision regulations. The <br />proposal, including modifications requested by various BOCC members, was ultimately adopted <br />on January 24, 2017. <br /> <br />While incorporating said amendments into the UDO, staff discovered inconsistencies between <br />the November Public Hearing language and the approved ordinance, including: <br />• Improper references to required minimum lot area for general use zoning districts, most <br />notably the Rural Buffer (RB); <br />• Inconsistent use of terminology; and <br />• Incorrect citation of various section(s) of the UDO. <br />The majority of proposed revisions appeared correctly within the amendment package <br />presented at the November 21, 2016 quarterly public hearing. It would appear staff utilized an <br />outdated version of the amendment package while completing the packet for the January 24, <br />2017 BOCC regular meeting, where the amendment was adopted, creating the aforementioned <br />problem(s). <br /> <br />This proposal seeks to resolve these errors, ensure the ordinance is consistent, and will meet <br />legal sufficiency. <br /> <br /> 41