|
<br />1
<br />SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 5, 2017 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4
<br /> 5
<br />NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6
<br /> 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township 8
<br />Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Randy Marshall, At-Large; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; 9
<br />Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 11 Members Absent: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township 12
<br />Representative; Donna Coffey, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 13
<br />Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 14
<br /> 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; 16
<br />Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II. 17
<br /> 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Rachel McCook, Minutes Preparer 19
<br /> 20
<br /> 21
<br />AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22 23
<br />Tony Blake called meeting to order. 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - SUBDIVISIONS - To review government-26
<br />initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that makes corrections to the amendments adopted on 27
<br />January 24, 2017 regarding subdivisions. 28 Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 29 30
<br />Patrick Mallett reviewed the abstract. He said that the UDO subdivision flexible development text change is the item that we 31
<br />spent the majority of last year working on. The synopsis of where we are is that there were over 90 pages of changes out of 32
<br />the UDO, a substantial effort. The document was edited, at a minimum, 14 times. During the Board of County Commissioner’s 33
<br />(BOCC) Quarterly Public Hearing in November 2016, Commissioners Price and Jacobs had specific parts they wanted to add 34
<br />into the text change. Planning Staff accommodated this request. The BOCC voted and approved the text change on January 35
<br />2017 and it became part of the Ordinance. Unfortunately, there were different versions in the mix, and the version that was 36
<br />approved by the BOCC was slightly different than the version the Planning Board saw. So, the ORC is reviewing this item 37
<br />tonight with Planning Staff in an effort to resolve and clarify any inconsistencies with the two versions regarding references 38
<br />(i.e. “UDO Section” vs. “Section”), terminology, grammar, syntax, and the way the item is presented. Mr. Mallett gave an 39
<br />apology for the time and effort to re-review this, but stressed that it is important. The Planning Board will see this item next 40
<br />month. In the meantime, Planning Staff will sit down with the County Attorney’s office to ensure this version has legal 41
<br />sufficiency. Most of these changes are regarding references or a change that directly tracks to a comment that the County 42
<br />Attorney made at the end of the review process that did not get included the January version. While most of the changes are 43
<br />syntax and grammatical, there is one change to point out specifically: Section 3 on page 3-2 of the UDO, the Rural Buffer 44
<br />Section. As previously written, in a subdivision within this zoning district, you would have one option: the minimum lot size was 45
<br />87,120 square feet. In the proposed Flexible Development Option, this was broken out into one acre (43,560 square feet). 46
<br />Unfortunately, the version of the UDO that now exists lists minimum lot size within this zoning district as 40,000 square feet 47
<br />(sq. ft.). This is an issue because there are numerous Joint Planning documents and numerous references throughout Section 48
<br />7 and elsewhere in the UDO that are very specific; the minimum lot size has to be an acre, 43,560 sq. ft. We need to make 49
<br />this change. Mr. Mallett concluded his presentation and offered to review other pages with the Committee or answer any 50
<br />questions, or if they think of something after the meeting, he asked that they email him. The goal is to make this version 51
<br />consistent and whole, to deal with all the omissions, clarifications, and get it back as close to the version that existed at the 52
<br />November Quarterly Public Hearing, with the addition of the aforementioned comments by Commissioners Price and Jacobs. 53
|