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

Browse Search

68 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 MARCH 20,2019 4 SPECIAL MEETING 5 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair),At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Kim Piracci,At-Large; 8 Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; Patricia 9 Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie,At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Randy Marshall, Bingham 10 Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer,At-Large; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township 13 Representative; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections Director;James Bryan, Staff Attorney; Michael Harvey, Current 16 Planning Supervisor; Tina Love,Administrative Assistant III 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 19 Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order. 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 2: PUBLIC CHARGE 22 Chair Lydia Wegman waived the reading of the Public Charge 23 24 AGENDA ITEM 3: CHAIR COMMENTS 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 4: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENTS—REORGANIZATION OF TABLES OF 27 PERMITTED USES—To continue review of and make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the 28 UDO that would reorganize the Tables of Permitted Uses in response to the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision 29 and modify other sections to ensure consistency within the ordinance. These amendments are scheduled for BOCC 30 public hearing on April 16, 2019. 31 32 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 33 34 Michael Harvey: I'm going to make a very brief summary. So obviously,you have an abstract outlining why we are 35 here this evening. There are tweaks that have been made to the packet and I want to review them very quickly. You 36 also have a revised attachment one that spells out the changes that have occurred within the proposed table. At your 37 last meeting there were concerns over the term burden of persuasion and what it meant. There were questions asked 38 which I forwarded to the attorney's office. I'll let Mr. Bryan speak to those in a moment. There was also a request to 39 allow retreat centers in additional non-residential zoning districts as permitted use, so you'll note from the abstract we've 40 allowed them within the neighborhood commercial,community commercial,general commercial, Economic 41 Development Buckhorn low intensity, Economic Development Eno low intensity, Economic Development Hillsborough 42 office retail districts at the request of the Planning Director. There are tweaks to Section 2.10.3 and this is where we 43 start getting into the discussion on modifications adding language associated with an applicant's burden of proof. As 44 pointed out at the last meeting the sentence reads as follows, 'applicants shall have the burden of establishing by 45 competent material and substantial evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans and other 46 materials,that the application meetings the requirements for approval of a Variance it's application meets'. So that is in 47 Section 2.10.3 and 2.11.3 what I would like the Board to do before we get into the discussion of burden of persuasion, 48 because regardless of whatever happens with burden of persuasion, I'd like there to be a motion to accept the 49 amendment to Section 2.10.3 and Section 2.11.3 replacing meetings with meets. 50 51 Randy Marshall: So moved 52 53 MOTION by Randy Marshall to accept the amendment to Section 2.10.3 and Section 2.11.3 replacing meetings with 54 meets. Seconded by Carrie Fletcher. 55 VOTE: Unanimous