Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br /> ORANGE COUNTY <br /> PLANNING BOARD <br /> ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br /> Meeting Date: March 20, 2019 <br /> Action Agenda <br /> Item No. 4 <br /> SUBJECT: Continued Review of Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment <br /> - Table of Permitted Uses <br /> DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections <br /> ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: <br /> 1. Summary of Changes Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 <br /> 2. Statement of Consistency Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 <br /> 3. UDO Text Amendment(s) <br /> PURPOSE: To continue review and make a recommendation to the Board of County <br /> Commissioners (BOCC) on Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) <br /> text amendments to the tables of permitted land uses. <br /> BACKGROUND: As indicated during the March 6, 2019 meeting, the amendment collapses <br /> existing tables of permitted uses as contained in Section(s) 5.2.1 (general use zoning districts), <br /> 5.2.2 (EDD general use zoning districts), and 5.2.3 (Conditional Zoning districts) into a <br /> centralized table. Agenda materials for this meeting can be viewed at: <br /> http://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/ 03062019-815 <br /> During the meeting, staff provided revisions incorporating modifications requested by the County <br /> Attorney. Attachment 1, which was provided at the meeting, summarizes the modifications now <br /> contained in an updated Attachment 3. <br /> Board members expressed concern over proposed modification(s) to Section(s) 2.10.3, 2.11.3, <br /> and 5.3.2 adding language establishing a `burden of proof' for variances, interpretations, and <br /> special use permits. Specifically, there was a concern over the term `burden of persuasion'. <br /> Action on the amendment was deferred, with a request that staff from the County Attorney's <br /> office attend tonight's meeting to address concerns, summarized as follows: <br /> 1. Board members wanted to know why the language needed to be incorporated and what <br /> issue said language was intended to address; <br /> 2. The Board did not understand what `persuasion' meant in the context of the proposed <br /> amendment(s) and expressed concern it would establish an undue burden on applicants; <br /> 3. Concerns were expressed over a lack of discernable/definable standards outlining what <br /> constitutes `persuasion'; <br /> 4. Members expressed concern requests (i.e. variance, interpretation, special use permit) <br /> could be denied simply on the determination of a Board member (i.e. Board of <br />