OCPB minutes 080217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9/6/17 2 Introduction to the Public Charge 54 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 55 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 56 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 57 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and 58 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 59 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 60 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 61 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 62 63 PUBLIC CHARGE 64 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 65 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 66 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 67 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 68 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 69 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 70 71 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 72 73 No comments from Chair or Vice Chair 74 75 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – SUBDIVISION – To make a 76 recommendation to the BOCC on government – initiated amendments to the text of the UDO 77 that makes corrections to the amendments adopted on January 24, 2017 regarding 78 subdivisions. This item is scheduled for the September 11, 2017 quarterly public hearing. 79 PRESENTER: PATRICK MALLETT 80 81 Patrick Mallett reviewed the abstract. This text change was brought to Planning Board members at the Ordinance 82 Review Committee (ORC) last month. To recap, this item is part of the flexible development subdivision text change 83 that was done last year. In November 2016 at the quarterly public hearing, there were a couple of changes requested 84 by two commissioners. Those changes were made and it was approved in January 2017. However, there were 85 differences between the November versions and the January versions of the amendment. This effort is to solve those 86 discrepancies between the two versions and rectify incorrect references. Mr. Mallett reviewed the packet and went 87 over that items highlighted in yellow denote changes that are not in the packet but are necessary. For example, there 88 is a reference to notification mailings for Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIM) that now have to go to going out 89 to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, but this was recently changed to property owners within 90 1,000 feet. There are only a few of those types of changes in the amendment. Staff has been working with the 91 County Attorney to ensure legal sufficiency and that the current version is as close to the version originally approved 92 as possible. Mr. Mallett drew Board members’ attention to the seven-page insert of the amendment, a portion most 93 recently reviewed by the County Attorney. Mr. Mallett went over the insert with Board members. The first page is the 94 Rural Buffer cover sheet (page 55 of Planning Board packet) and changes in blue reflect the way that the 95 amendment was presented to the BOCC at the November quarterly public hearing. Staff is trying to get the exact 96 same language from that version into this version. The next change is footnote (6) on the back page. Here again, 97 language is verbatim from the version from the November quarterly public hearing; additionally, the text mirrors the 98 language in residential zoning districts in Section 3 of the UDO. On page 79 of the packet, there is a number change 99 to correct a reference. On page 84, there are word changes and reference changes to the Estate Lot section of the 100 Ordinance. The changes on page 93 are illustrative of an example of Staff trying to maintain consistency with 101 references throughout the Ordinance; typically a section in the UDO would be written as “7.12.4.” The County 102 Attorney’s preference is to go through the entire Ordinance and make references consistent, but that effort should not 103 be comingled with this effort. In the last section, there was a question about this – “Common Area” was stricken from 104 the November quarterly public hearing version as it is not really a relevant definition to use. The others, “Common 105 Open Space” and “Primary Open Space,” are defined under Section 10, but they are listed alphabetically under “O” 106