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

Browse Search

60 DRAFT 162 Michael's statements. Ms. Fletcher remarked that she was not comfortable with the phrase. Ms.Wegman requested 163 clarification other than other jurisdictions have included this language. 164 165 Paul Guthrie question how burden is measured in litigation. Mr. Harvey acknowledged that this was another area of 166 concern for the board. 167 168 Adam Beeman commented that if all required items were checked off and an applicant had sound evidence,that the 169 boards could still deny their request if they decided they didn't like the project. He stated there needs to be a goal to 170 reach for and explained that an applicant should be able to reach for XYZ to get a variance. It should not be based 171 on the ability to convince someone to pass the applicant's problem. 172 173 Randy Marshall added the applicant needs to understand what the boards were not persuaded on to give them a 174 basis for appeal. Adam Beeman stated that he understood Randy Marshall's comment. 175 176 Michael Harvey reminded the board that every decision by either the County Commissioners or the Board of 177 Adjustment on Special Use Permits,variances, or appeals are automatically appealable within 30 days to the Orange 178 County Superior Court. 179 180 Randy Marshall expressed his desire to have the boards give reason for not being persuaded on an applicant's case. 181 He stated there should be a responsibility on the basis of the board members who don't agree to give a reason why. 182 183 Adam Beeman agreed. He expressed that this could pose an undue burden on the average homeowner. He 184 remarked that it would be a burden on an applicant to have to take the case to the Supreme Court of the County and 185 appeal because it didn't pass. 186 187 Alexander Gregory stated he was okay as it was originally written but expressed that there was some confusion with 188 the language upon hearing the concerns of the other board members. He explained that when he originally read the 189 language he understood it to mean that a person could have all their pieces together but that would not mean 190 someone on the board would agree with that person, and so they would have to take it a step further to explain and 191 to try to convince somebody who would be voting on it. 192 193 Adam Beeman questioned what the reason would be for denying an applicant. Alexander Gregory stated that 194 someone could have their own personal reasons for denying the applicant. He again stated that he understood it to 195 mean that they should be prepared even if they have everything in order. 196 197 Michael Harvey resumed his explanation of the amendments. He explained that 25 (B-F), articulated in the table, is 198 a renumbering of sections to make them now compliant with the flow. The next change on page 25(G) is the same 199 burden of proof language in interpretations. He then moved to Page 29 and explained it was included for 200 consistency. He explained that he made a change on page 30 in an attempt to keep the flow of pages correct. Page 201 29 updates a reference to the provision of the LIDO. He explained as pages are added and deleted, citations change 202 so instead of 5.1.4, it's now 5.1.3. He stated that the language on Page 30 has been there since the beginning, but 203 he had shown it as existing text, meaning it had not been highlighted in any way shape or form. It is new text and 204 has to be identified as new text,that's the change and that's the reason for footnotes. The note will also appear in 205 the master table provided to the board. 206 207 Michael Harvey mentioned that there were other changes to be discussed and continued to Page 56, under 208 recreation, Land Use, camp retreat. He explained that because of changes having to be made to the Assembly Land 209 Use, retreat centers would be split from recreation into assembly. Mr. Harvey explained that retreat had to come out 210 of recreation because of the character and the scope of the use and guided the board to this on page 56. He further 211 explained that they were also seeing the deletion of sweepstakes, cafe and parlor and stated that state law prohibits 212 them. The attorney has decided that if it's prohibited by state law, to let state law tell people it's prohibited and illegal. 213 When and if state law is ever changes this, an ordinance amendment will have to be done, but there will be a legal 214 basis for establishing a regulatory standard for that land use at that time. He explained that theaters were also being 215 moved as it is considered an assembly use. He explained that the board would also notice a renumbering as pages 216 are deleted or moved around.