Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> Commissioner Dorosin said there used to be a list of everything one could do, and the <br /> operating presumption was that anything not listed was prohibited; but now case law says <br /> anything that is not prohibited is essentially allowed. <br /> John Roberts said yes. He said land use is a fundamental right, and any regulation that <br /> is in derogation of land use must be clear and interpretable, as to what it is prohibiting. He said <br /> any reliance on something that says one can do this, and conceivably one cannot do this, will <br /> no longer be interpreted in favor of the County. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin said he assumes the court would not accept: here are the five <br /> things that are permitted, and anything else not listed is expressly prohibited. <br /> John Roberts said that is correct, that cannot be done. <br /> Michael Harvey said that is how the County had been operating, as well as every other <br /> local government for decades. He said this is a fundamental correction. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin said this is a fundamental correction that all local governments <br /> should be doing. <br /> John Roberts said every local government should be doing so, and it is not unique to <br /> Orange County. <br /> What the amendment does: <br /> — Modify Article 5 Uses incorporating development standards for land uses; <br /> • Language identifying uses that are and are not permitted through <br /> Conditional Zoning process, <br /> • Clarifying setbacks and land use buffers. <br /> — Modify Article 10 Definitions incorporating new and/or revised definitions; <br /> — Incorporate modifications to the Economic Development Hillsborough (EDH) <br /> districts as directed by BOCC. <br /> What the amendment does not do: <br /> — Alter existing development restrictions (i.e. setbacks, minimum lot sizes, required <br /> land use buffers, etc.) <br /> — Impact/alter the County's Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (i.e. impervious <br /> surface limits, required density limits, etc.) <br /> — Alter required application submittal and review criteria. <br /> Planning Board Recommendation <br /> • Planning Board reviewed final amendment package at its March 6, 2019 regular <br /> meeting, <br /> • Continued discussion at a March 20 special meeting <br /> • Voted 7-1 recommending approval of amendments eliminating language, as <br /> recommended by the County Attorney, establishing a `burden of persuasion' for those <br /> applying for a variance, interpretation, or special use permit. <br /> Planning Director Recommendation <br /> • Approval of Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) and UDO amendment (Attachment <br /> 7); <br /> • Keep `burden of persuasion' language as recommended by the County Attorney; <br /> • Director believes language is necessary to ensure the legal sufficiency of the UDO, as <br /> indicated by the County Attorney, by spelling out an applicant's obligations when <br /> applying for a variance, interpretation, and special use permit. <br /> Manager Recommendation <br /> The Manager recommends the Board: <br />