Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
ORANGE COUNTY <br />PLANNING BOARD ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE <br />ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br /> Meeting Date: January 4, 2017 <br /> Action Agenda <br /> Item No. 2 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments – Permitted Use <br />Table Clarifying Permitted and Prohibited Land Uses <br /> <br />DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections <br /> <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: <br />1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified <br />Development Ordinance (UDO) <br />Amendment Outline Form <br />2. Existing Permitted Use Table(s) <br />3. Proposed Permitted Use Table <br />Modification(s) <br />Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 <br />Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 <br /> <br />PURPOSE: To review and comment upon proposed government-initiated Unified Development <br />Ordinance (UDO) text amendment regarding modifications to the tables of permitted uses. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND: Section(s) 5.2.1 through 5.2.3 of the UDO contains the table of permitted uses <br />spelling out allowable land uses within various zoning districts (i.e. general use, economic <br />development, and conditional zoning districts). <br /> <br />In most circumstances when a development proposal is submitted staff ascertains if the use is <br />either specifically listed (i.e. single-family residence, church, restaurant, etc.) or falls into an <br />established land use category (i.e. paper manufacture allowed in light industrial) to make the <br />determination if the use is permitted or not. <br /> <br />In November of 2015 the State Supreme Court in Byrd versus Franklin County rejected the <br />argument that the mere omission/listing of a particular land use within a table of permitted uses <br />constituted a prohibition of same. The Court stated: ‘…. law favors uninhibited free use of <br />private property over government restrictions’. In consultation with the County Attorney’s office, <br />staff has determined the permitted use table(s) need to be modified to ensure compliance with <br />the aforementioned court case clarifying allowable/prohibited land uses and ensuring uniformity <br />amongst the various existing tables. <br /> <br />An example of the challenge faced is the manner in which permitted uses are identified within <br />each individual table. Section 5.2.1 Table of Permitted Uses – General Use Zoning Districts <br />combines several ‘Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing’ land use types into 1 of 3 <br />‘industrial’ categories (i.e. light, medium, and heavy). Within Section 5.2.2 Table of Permitted <br />Uses – Economic Development Districts, however, specific individual land uses are listed <br />identifying where same are allowed. <br /> <br /> 2