Planning Board agenda 040319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T of the existing regulatory requirements that would grant the ability for someone to be considered conforming that did a 223 permit in the 60s or 70s.224 225 Randy Marshall asked if conforming meant they would they have to change to be the New Hope Retreat Center. Mr. 226 Harvey replied, no.227 228 Michael Harvey continued to the next change and guided the board to page 57. He spoke on the references to 229 dormitories, fraternities, and sororities and explained that those reference were being deleted because they are either 230 a rooming house or a multi-family land use. He stated they were already covered under the code so there would be no 231 reason to repeat it. Additionally, he explained that dormitories, fraternities, and sororities are also connected to 232 university operations which are required to get Special Use Permits under the code. He stated that there are none in 233 Orange County, so it was being deleted. Mr. Harvey informed that board that he had met with a few commissioners 234 the in the previous week and brought the concerns of airports to their attention. He mentioned that the commissioners 235 liked the notion of deleting the airports from the residential districts but did not find it appropriate to move them into an 236 industrial as recommended. He stated they liked the idea of doing further study to find better ways to handle airports 237 than what’s currently in the code. He brought an additional concern the board and asked them to consider what to do 238 with someone who has a heliport or an airfield as an accessary use on their property. 239 240 Craig Benedict commented that these airports are allowed as accessory use to residential if it is for a private party.241 242 Michael Harvey remarked, yes, and stated that the commissioners he had met with addressed that there needs to be 243 some thought about adopting some minimal standards for those types of activities. 244 245 Michael Harvey moved to page 61 and reminded the board that this was a topic they had touched on. He explained 246 that there used to be two categories wholesale trade durable and wholesale trade nondurable goods which were both 247 permitted in the same zoning districts and added that they are now being combined into one group, wholesale trade. 248 249 Michael Harvey explained the changes to assembly uses and stated that the recommendation is to eliminate the 250 overall category and splitting it out per use. He defined assembly use as a gathering of people for a purpose and then 251 explained the differences between various assemblies, such as places of worship, clubs, lodges, community centers, 252 theaters and retreat centers. Mr. Harvey informed the board that the changes were made to clarify the distinction 253 between the various types of assemblies. He stated that the changes addressed some of the loop hole issues, but it 254 was decided that they needed to rid of the over-arching category and splitting it per use. He addressed the changes to 255 special events as defined in the ordinance and asked the board to note the definition on the table that had been 256 provided. Mr. Harvey pointed out a regulatory standard which had been added into the definition of a special event 257 and informed everyone it had been moved to the appropriate section in the UDO. 258 259 Randy Marshall voiced his concern that anyone could say they were gathering to worship. Mr. Harvey asked him to 260 remember that determinations would be performed on a case-by-case basis, and he then reiterated the definition of a 261 place of worship. He explained that if a person is proposing a land use, the first task would be to determine whether or 262 not that person meets the requirements for what constitutes a place of worship. 263 264 Randy Marshall stated that he could argue that the categories that were just listed are exclusionary as opposed to 265 inclusive. He voiced that the felt this was a loophole being left open. 266 267 Michael Harvey asserted that it would be the totality of all the definitions, standards and framework that would establish 268 the County with the authority to say they are a place of worship and reiterated it would have to be done on a case-by-269 case basis.270 271 Randy Marshall asked whether the Rams club would be considered a place of worship. Mr. Harvey stated that for 272 some people, yes, but it would be considered a club with respect to the construction of the UDO. Randy stated that 273 that was his pointed and commented that it was in the mind of the beholder. Mr. Harvey replied that he understood but 274 stated that it would be a club based on the current definition.275 276 Alexander Gregory remarked that he thought there to enough logic there in the case-by- case basis. 277 278 9