ORC agenda 080515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Article 2: Procedures Section 2.7: Special Use Permits Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-23 (3) Following review submission of all evidence at a public hearing the Special Use permit Permit application shall may27 be referred to the Planning Board for its consideration and recommendation. (a) The public hearing may be continued to a date/time certain in order to receive the Planning Board’s recommendation. (4) The Board of County Commissioners may direct the Planning Board to provide a recommendation by a date certain. If the Board of County Commissioners does not so direct, the Planning Board shall make its recommendation within three regularly scheduled meetings.28 (i) If the Planning Board fails to make a recommendation within the time allotted within subsection (3) above, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners public hearing will resume without a Planning Board recommendation.29 (5) The Planning Board shall consider only the evidence presented to the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing.30 (6) The Planning Board shall make a recommendation and proposed findings of fact on the application, including the findings required in Section 5.3.2 of this Ordinance 31. The Planning Board’s action on an application shall be one of the following: (a) Recommend approval based on proposed findings of fact, (b) Recommend denial based on proposed findings of fact, (c) Recommend approval based on proposed findings of fact but with specified conditions. (7) After receipt of any Planning Board recommendation and closure of the public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall take action upon the application. This action shall be one of the following: (a) Approval; (b) Approval with conditions; or (c) Denial. (B) For Class B Special Use Permits, the following shall apply: (1) The Board of Adjustment shall review the application during a regularly scheduled public hearing. 27 The Staff Attorney has suggested this language modification in order to allow for flexibility by the BOCC in cases that have no or little controversy. 28 Because public hearings must be kept open to a date/time certain, this paragraph is obsolete and should be deleted. 29 Currently, the language in (i) is (4) in the adopted UDO. It is suggested to be moved to under the new (a) in order to flow better. Language modifications have been suggested by the Staff Attorney. 30 Language suggested by the Staff Attorney. 31 The Planning Board has expressed strong feelings about continuing to make a recommendation of the required findings in Section 5.3.2. Because the recommendation needs to be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Planning Board recommendation must occur after the evidentiary hearing. This is necessary because applicants and opponents cannot be required to present their evidence prior to the public hearing (as might be expected if the Planning Board meeting occurs prior to the public hearing). Additionally, if the Planning Board meeting were to occur prior to the public hearing, it is possible that there would be future concerns about people not having enough time to prepare between the Neighborhood Information Meeting and the Planning Board meeting. Since there is not an expectation that review/decision processes are to be lengthened, the logistics of having the Planning Board make a recommendation prior to the public hearing are difficult. 24