ORC agenda 090716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

proposing to initiate text amendments to clarify allowable and prohibited land uses within the various general use zoning districts throughout the County. These amendments are in response to recent court decisions, most notably action by the State Supreme Court in Byrd versus Franklin County, placing the onus on local governments to have sufficient specificity ‘spelling out’ allowable and prohibited land uses. 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’. Section(s) 5.2.1 through 5.2.3 of the UDO contains the table of permitted uses spelling out allowable land uses. In many instances the table contains broad land use categories, such as Recreational Facilities or Sexually Oriented Businesses, intended to represent multiple, individual, land uses. When a development proposal is submitted, staff ascertains if the use is either: a. Specifically listed (i.e. single-family residence, church, restaurant, etc.) or b. Falls into an established land use category (i.e. a baseball field open to the public would be classified as a Recreational Facilities). and processes the request accordingly. If the proposed use is not specifically listed, or is determined to be inconsistent with existing land use categories, it is considered prohibited. In November of 2015 the State Supreme Court in Byrd versus Franklin County rejected the argument that the mere omission/listing of a particular land use within a table of permitted uses constituted a prohibition of same. The Court stated: ‘…. law favors uninhibited free use of private property over government restrictions’. A copy of the Court’s ruling in the Franklin County case can be viewed at: https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=33680. In reviewing this decision, staff and the Attorney’s office have determined modifications to the County’s land use regulations are necessary. The amendment seeks to: i. Clarify prohibited land uses, ii. Provide specificity for existing land use categories making it easier to identify what land uses are allowed within them, iii. Establish the ‘factors/criteria’ staff considers when making a determination if a proposed land use is consistent, and iv. Ensure uniformity within the individual tables (i.e. a retail operation is not listed/defined differently in the various general use zoning districts). Taking these steps will provide more clarity for landowners and staff with respect to allowable and prohibited uses as well as make the regulations more legally 5