Browse
Search
ORC agenda 080118
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Ordinance Review Committee
>
Agendas
>
2018
>
ORC agenda 080118
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2018 11:56:21 AM
Creation date
8/29/2018 11:47:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/1/2018
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
162
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Article 2: Procedures <br /> Section 2.7: Special Use Permits <br /> <br /> <br />Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-25 <br /> <br />(1) The Planning Director shall submit a recommendation with proposed <br />findings of fact based on the information available in the application <br />package. Should the Planning Director fail to make a recommendation <br />prior to the public hearing, the application shall be forwarded to the <br />Board of County Commissioners without a Planning Director <br />recommendation. <br />(2) The Board of Adjustment shall conduct the hearing in accordance within <br />the provisions detailed in this Section as well as those contained within <br />Section 2.12. <br />(3) After closing the public hearing, the Board of Adjustment shall take <br />action upon the application. This action shall include making appropriate <br />findings of fact pursuant to Section 2.7.11, stating whether the board <br />concludes each of the applicable standards have been met and one of <br />the following: <br />(a) Approval; <br />(b) Approval but with specified conditions as provided in Section <br />2.7.12; or <br />(c) Denial. <br />2.7.10 Standards of Evaluation <br />On deciding on an application, the Board shall consider: <br />(A) the general standards from Section 5.3.2(A), <br />(B) the specific service standards from Section 5.3.2(B), <br />(C) the use standards from <br />(1) Article 3 for each zoning district, <br />(2) the Table of Permitted Uses at Section 5.2, and <br />(3) additional standards for specific Special Uses established in Sections 5.4 <br />through 5.17, <br />(D) Tthe following specific vesting standards shall be used in deciding on an <br />application: <br />(A) The project meets all applicable design standards and other <br />requirements of this Ordinance. <br />(B)(1) The development can reasonably be completed within the vesting period <br />requested, if any, and. <br />(2) Where vesting in excess of two years is requested, the project is located <br />in an area where current issues under study do not involve potential <br />amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and/or this Ordinance,, and <br />(C)(E) .the project meets all other applicable requirements of this Ordinance. <br />2.7.11 Required Findings <br />(A) A resolution or motion to approve or deny the application must include the <br />findings of fact and conclusions of law that support the decision. <br />(1) Any proposed conditions of approval must also be included in the <br />resolution or motion to approve the application. <br />(A)(2) A resolution or motion to approve or deny shall not be deficient for failure <br />to include findings of fact or conclusions of law to the extent where those <br />are uncontested or otherwise made clear by the record. <br />Comment [JCB22]: This replicates the prior <br />section which has a NIM and PB for Class A SUPs <br />heard by the BOCC. The PD makes <br />recommendations based on the application. The PD <br />should make application forms (and recommend <br />amendments to the UDO relevant to submission <br />requirements) so that relevant information is <br />included such as forecast of evidence from <br />appraisers etc. <br />Formatted: (none) <br />Formatted: Indent: Left: 2" <br />Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" <br />Comment [JCB23]: This was misleading in that <br />this section was called Standards of Evaluation but <br />only described one set of standards without <br />mentioning all the other standards of evaluation <br />which have to be considered. <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Heading 4, Indent: Left: 1.5" <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold, English (U.S.) <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold, English (U.S.) <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold, English (U.S.) <br />Formatted: Heading 5, Indent: Left: 2" <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Heading 4, Indent: Left: 1.5" <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Heading 5, Indent: Left: 2" <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold, (none) <br />Formatted: Heading 4, Indent: Left: 1.5" <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Comment [JCB24]: Best practice would be to <br />list those, but this is likely a sufficient placeholder. <br />Assuming these other requirements are performance <br />standards such as light, noise, trees, etc. <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" <br />Formatted: Indent: Left: 1" <br />Comment [JCB25]: Recommendation to <br />streamline the ordinance by combining A and B; ... [1] <br />Formatted: (none) <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold <br />Formatted: Heading 5, Indent: Left: 2" <br />Formatted: Font: Not Bold, (none) <br />Comment [JCB26]: Consistent with case law ... [2] <br /> 20
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.