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

Browse Search

61 DRAFT 217 Craig Benedict questioned what a camp was by itself without retreat center. Mr. Harvey responded that a camp is 218 basically like a boy scout or summer camp. Mr. Benedict sought reassurance that it was not an assembly. Mr. 219 Harvey replied, no, and remarked it was a recreation activity. 220 221 Randy Marshall inquired if it was similar to Camp New Hope. Mr. Harvey replied that Camp New Hope would be 222 considered a retreat center. Mr. Harvey explained that Camp New Hope was established before the requirement for 223 a Special Use Permit. Per the ordinance, Mr. Harvey said,they have what is deemed to be a de facto Special Use 224 Permit. He explained that the camp is considered to be conforming and further explained that changes don't impact 225 anybody who had a Class B Special Use Permit for a retreat center in the county. He stated it does not undermine 226 any of the existing regulatory requirements that would grant the ability for someone to be considered conforming that 227 did a permit in the 60s or 70s. 228 229 Randy Marshall asked if conforming meant they would they have to change to be the New Hope Retreat Center. Mr. 230 Harvey replied, no. 231 232 Michael Harvey continued to the next change and guided the board to page 57. He spoke on the references to 233 dormitories,fraternities, and sororities and explained that those reference were being deleted because they are either 234 a rooming house or a multi-family land use. He stated they were already covered under the code so there would be 235 no reason to repeat it. Additionally, he explained that dormitories,fraternities,and sororities are also connected to 236 university operations which are required to get Special Use Permits under the code. He stated that there are none in 237 Orange County, so it was being deleted. Mr. Harvey informed that board that he had met with a few commissioners 238 the in the previous week and brought the concerns of airports to their attention. He mentioned that the 239 commissioners liked the notion of deleting the airports from the residential districts but did not find it appropriate to 240 move them into an industrial as recommended. He stated they liked the idea of doing further study to find better 241 ways to handle airports than what's currently in the code. He brought an additional concern the board and asked 242 them to consider what to do with someone who has a heliport or an airfield as an accessary use on their property. 243 244 Craig Benedict commented that these airports are allowed as accessory use to residential if it is for a private party. 245 246 Michael Harvey remarked, yes, and stated that the commissioners he had met with addressed that there needs to be 247 some thought about adopting some minimal standards for those types of activities. 248 249 Michael Harvey moved to page 61 and reminded the board that this was a topic they had touched on. He explained 250 that there used to be two categories wholesale trade durable and wholesale trade nondurable goods which were both 251 permitted in the same zoning districts and added that they are now being combined into one group,wholesale trade. 252 253 Michael Harvey explained the changes to assembly uses and stated that the recommendation is to eliminate the 254 overall category and splitting it out per use. He defined assembly use as a gathering of people for a purpose and 255 then explained the differences between various assemblies, such as places of worship, clubs, lodges,community 256 centers, theaters and retreat centers. Mr. Harvey informed the board that the changes were made to clarify the 257 distinction between the various types of assemblies. He stated that the changes addressed some of the loop hole 258 issues, but it was decided that they needed to rid of the over-arching category and splitting it per use. He addressed 259 the changes to special events as defined in the ordinance and asked the board to note the definition on the table that 260 had been provided. Mr. Harvey pointed out a regulatory standard which had been added into the definition of a 261 special event and informed everyone it had been moved to the appropriate section in the UDO. 262 263 Randy Marshall voiced his concern that anyone could say they were gathering to worship. Mr. Harvey asked him to 264 remember that determinations would be performed on a case-by-case basis, and he then reiterated the definition of a 265 place of worship. He explained that if a person is proposing a land use,the first task would be to determine whether 266 or not that person meets the requirements for what constitutes a place of worship. 267 268 Randy Marshall stated that he could argue that the categories that were just listed are exclusionary as opposed to 269 inclusive. He voiced that the felt this was a loophole being left open. 270