ORC minutes 010417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 2.1.17 7 choice without necessarily either A: Having to have a degree in Planning or B: At the whim of a Craig or a Michael to decide 318 how to define the term”. 319 320 Paul Guthrie: And then once you do that then it can be litigated. 321 322 Tony Blake: Or it can change over time. 323 324 Paul Guthrie: So the question is do you make a list that is as encompassing as possible in definition of functions or do you 325 make a list that is as complicated as it will be to things you can’t do? 326 327 Michael Harvey: Well Paul, I guess beauty’s in the eye of the beholder. Because I think it’s going to be both ways. I think there 328 are some people that are going to see this as, “Wow, you just listed 50 things I can’t do” but, “Yeah, we’ve listed also 20 things 329 you can do”. “But I want to do this”, “Sorry, you can’t. It’s not permitted. You’re choices are amend the ordinance or do 330 something else”. We are however giving you that level of detail and that definitive detail so that you don’t necessarily have to 331 rely on an interpretive call that could change either because Craig leaves and you get somebody else in that seat that has a 332 totally different view of how to interpret a certain land use category. That’s what this is an attempt to start memorializing. Now, 333 as I indicated at the onset of this meeting, this is not going to be the all-encompassing list. It’s going to be as close as we can 334 get it. Land use is a fluid, ever-changing monster. And Craig and I have said this is many meetings, we know you’ve heard it, 335 the UDO is a living, breathing document that is designed to change over time, albeit sometimes slowly, to address the current 336 needs of the community, and to address the changing aspects of the community. There are land uses that some Board 337 members may now say, “We want to allow this here but we don’t want to allow this here anymore because it makes more 338 sense”. That’s perfectly reasonable and that’s what some of this is going to, I think, pull out. 339 340 Craig Benedict: This version of the NAICS code is 2012 and there might be a 2018 and we might have to see what the 341 differences are and find if it’s a ruling to say that we now need to list those new uses and decide whether they’re ok or not. 342 343 Tony Blake: So it strikes me there’s two activities here. One is the list of use types, however we pair it up or down and then 344 two, filling in all the little boxes along the appropriate NAICS codes. 345 346 Michael Harvey: Well remember, that’s also a point of contention we need to talk about. We have provided the NAICS code as 347 the example because that’s what we started out with for the Hillsborough district. We’re not married in the fact that the County 348 Attorney’s Office vacillates depending on when you talk to them on whether or not we should get whole heartedly embrace the 349 NAICS code or just list uses and not rely on the sectors. One example is, both Perdita had brought to James’ attention our 350 concerns of, “If there are changes to the NAICS code what does that do to us?” and his initial reaction and it still is to some 351 extent now is that it doesn’t matter. You’re referencing a certain NAICS code, a 2012 NAICS code; so what if there’s an 352 update? If you don’t choose to update your code, you’ve at least made reference to the appropriate code you’re using, or don’t 353 use the NAICS code at all for the stand point of referencing sectors, list the uses and make sure you’re properly defining them 354 if you need to; article 10 in this case. And the NAICS is just a guide in terms of a comprehensive list of uses. So again, there’s 355 a lot of ways this is going to have to be discussed to potentially pan out. 356 357 Tony Blake: What are other jurisdictions doing? 358 359 Michael Harvey: I don’t think it’s fair to say that there is any one jurisdiction that has the same opinion about this as the other. 360 In talking to some of my brethren from other Counties some are hiding under rocks and quite bluntly some are saying our 361 Attorneys say this isn’t as big of a deal as it seems to be, and we’re just going to wait until we’re sued. And I don’t mean that 362 meanly, but they’re attitude is, “We believe we have defined our land use tables sufficiently that we don’t need to worry about 363 Byrd v. Franklin”. We need to worry about Byrd v. Franklin for a couple different reasons. One because we have terms like 364 “light industrial” that provide a grotesque synopsis that relies on a determination to be made by a staff person. We have an 365 overall definition of office and personal service class 1, 2, 3 where your difference in class 1, class 2, class 3 is either a traffic 366 impact assessment or something else. We have health services, that all-encompassing title that says 10,000 square feet and 367 under. What’s a health service? Does that include this, does that include that? And then that goes back to some of the 368 discussion I think you were having, not to kind of mince the issues here but it will hit the point home I hope; what’s the 369 difference in the Hillsborough Economic Development district with a 1.9 acre parcel doing something but a 2.1 acre parcel 370