Orange County NC Website
<br />3 <br />for “Open Space” instead of “C” for “Common Open Space.” Mr. Mallett said that these changes make it so this 107 <br />version is as close to the November 2016 as possible. This version will not be exactly the same since other 108 <br />aforementioned parts of the UDO have changed since November 2016. He concluded his presentation and asked if 109 <br />there were any questions. 110 <br /> 111 <br />Lydia Wegman asked if anyone had questions or comments. 112 <br /> 113 <br />Michael Harvey said that whoever is making the motion to reflect the changes as recommended by the County 114 <br />Attorney’s Office and the addendum that was submitted this evening . 115 <br /> 116 MOTION by Randy Marshall (to reflect what Michael Harvey stated above). Seconded by David Blankfard. 117 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 118 <br /> 119 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – REORGANIZATION OF TABLES OF 120 PERMITTED USES – To make a recommendation to the BOCC government – initiated 121 <br />amendments to the UDO that would reorganize the Tables of Permitted Uses in response to 122 <br />the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision and modify other sections to endure consistency 123 <br />within the ordinance. This item is scheduled for the September 11, 2017 quarterly public 124 <br />hearing. 125 PRESENTER: MICHAEL HARVEY 126 <br /> 127 <br />Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. As Mr. Harvey explained in his email to Planning Board members, the Board 128 <br />will not be taking action on this item tonight. The County Attorney’s Office has asked for some additional work to be 129 <br />done to address some concerns over legal sufficiency. He also wants Staff to consider some modifications. Staff 130 <br />could have conceivably had a packet ready for the Board for a recommendation, but this is too important to rush. 131 <br />This item is not going before the BOCC at the September quarterly public hearing; this is going in November (date 132 <br />to be determined since the hearing is going to be moved). Mr. Harvey said that most of his presentation would 133 <br />focus on what the County Attorney’s Office recommended is reviewed. He asked if there were any initial comments 134 <br />and let the Board know that this item will not be further reviewed at the next ORC meeting, but rather brought 135 <br />before the Board at the October meeting to take action. Planning Staff will send the Board the most recent version 136 <br />in preparation for the October meeting. Staff will keep the Board updated with their work effort and any other issues 137 <br />that transpire. The first issue (page 134 in the packet) – Staff received a comment from the County Attorney’s Office 138 <br />last Thursday asking Staff to combine the land use category “Composting Operation, with grinding” and 139 <br />“Composting Operation, no grinding,” into one land use category called “Composting Operation,” and to distinguish 140 <br />grinding/no grinding in the use standards. Staff does not object to this; the problem is that if Staff changes this 141 <br />language, will it trigger having it to be reviewed by other entities at this juncture, especially since there was no 142 <br />original recommended change to this section. The distinction is that Composting Operation is permitted in one 143 <br />district with no grinding and permitted in other districts with both no grinding and grinding. From Staff’s standpoint, 144 <br />there is no reason not to have them as separate categories, but there is also no reason not to combine them, other 145 <br />than avoiding unnecessary delay. 146 <br /> 147 <br />Lydia Wegman asked if there is a difference between a grinding Operation verses a non-grinding Operation that 148 <br />would be meaningful to residents. 149 <br /> 150 <br />Michael Harvey responded that yes, in terms of what districts the uses are allowed in, but that is it. He defined 151 <br />“Composting Operation, with grinding” as the grinding down and breaking-down of materials. Planning Staff will 152 <br />keep Board abreast of any developments. Mr. Harvey said that he was not interested in messing with the 153 <br />“Agricultural” land use category as currently contained in the UDO. 154 <br /> 155 <br />Lydia Wegman responded that that is understandable. 156 <br /> 157 <br />Michael Harvey continued with his presentation (page 135) in regards to “Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair,” 158 <br />“Motor Vehicle Repair Garage,” and “Motor Vehicle Service Station.” While the County Attorney understands that 159 <br /> 7