Agenda - 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Table of Permitted Uses

Browse Search

3 All retail land uses have been collapsed into a single category versus listing out individual uses. Staff has also established development criteria within Article 5 to address the impacts of such development consistent with existing regulations (i.e. building size limits, operational requirements, screening, etc.). The result is a streamlined table and a concise description of development requirements. c. Modifies Article 10 Definitions of the UDO to incorporate new and/or revised definitions of various land uses, consistent with the proposed new table. d. Incorporates modifications to the Economic Development Hillsborough (EDH) districts as discussed by the BOCC late in 2016. e. Includes processes allowing for `reasonable accommodations' as requested by the County Attorney's office. As part of this request, staff added language clarifying the burden of proof for variance, interpretation, and special use permit applications including adding references to an applicant's `burden of persuasion'. Attachment 1 contains the legal advertisement for the April 16, 2019 public hearing. Attachment 2 contains a summary of the proposed changes for reference purposes. Attachment 3 is a project fact sheet, including frequently asked questions, concerning the impacts of this amendment package. 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'. The amendments are necessary to address the legal sufficiency of the UDO with respect to the findings of Byrd versus Franklin by spelling out allowable and prohibited land uses. Staff is eliminating the unnecessarily repetitive, and often confusing, delineation of allowable land uses by creating a central table of permitted uses and has combined similar land uses into single categories to ensure uniformity with respect to application of development criteria and permitting. Planning Board Recommendation: The Board began review of the finalized amendment package at its March 6, 2019 regular meeting, with continued discussion at a special meeting held on March 20 to allow for additional review on Attorney recommended language associated with the burden of persuasion for certain processes (i.e. variances, interpretations, and special use permits). The Attorney prepared a memo for Board review, which is contained in Attachment 4. At the March 20 special meeting, the Planning Board voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the amendments with the elimination of language in Section(s) 2.10.3, 2.11.3, and 5.3.2 establishing a `burden of persuasion' for those applying for a variance, interpretation, or special use permit. In recommending approval, members indicated they were not comfortable keeping language referencing an applicant's `burden of persuasion' as they were unpersuaded by the County Attorney's arguments the language was necessary. An excerpt of the minutes from the March 3 and 20, 2019 meetings, as well as the Planning Board's approved Statement of Consistency, are contained within Attachment 5. Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) and the Ordinance amending the UDO (Attachment 7