ORC agenda 070214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has initiated text amendment(s) to require a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) be held for all Special Use Permit (SUP) applications prior to the scheduling of a public hearing. The proposal would also modify the timeline for the holding of a NIM for Conditional Use applications. Originally staff had anticipated amending existing NIM requirements for Conditional Zoning District (CZD) applications, as detailed within Section 2.9.2 (D) of the UDO. Staff determined, however, there was no need to revise existing timelines as CZD applications are not reviewed through the quasi-judicial hearing process (i.e. requiring sworn testimony and competent material evidence) and there was no need to provide additional time to adjacent property owners to understand the review process or prepare for the public hearing. At the May 27, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing several BOCC members expressed concern over the lack notification/information on SUP applications in advance of a scheduled public hearing. The review of SUP applications are carried out in a quasi-judicial process requiring the presentation of sworn, expert, testimony and competent material/substantial evidence by both those in favor and in opposition to a given application. Decisions to approve or deny an application are based on this evidence. Hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. Currently, the SUP review process requires adjacent property owners receive written notice of a public hearing, via certified mail, a minimum of 15 days prior to a scheduled public hearing. Given the complexity of the review process the concern is this is insufficient time to allow for adjacent property owners to gather information, or secure the necessary experts, to effectively participate in the review process. At the public hearing staff recommended amending existing permit review processes for SUP applications could be amended for future projects to require the holding of the aforementioned meeting in an effort to inform local property owners of the project and provide educational information on the nature of the proceedings, including detail on what constitutes ‘competent material evidence and testimony’, and the required findings that have to be made to issue a permit. 2. Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners’. The amendments are necessary to ensure Orange County residents and property owners are provided advanced notice of submitted SUP applications, have an opportunity to review the project before a scheduled public hearing, obtain an understanding of the required review and approval processes, and have sufficient time to gather information and/or secure experts to aid them in the review of the project. 5