Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-04-2021; 5-b - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments – “160D” Legislation
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2020's
>
2021
>
Agenda - 05-04-2021 Virtual Business Meeting
>
Agenda - 05-04-2021; 5-b - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments – “160D” Legislation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2021 2:10:13 PM
Creation date
4/29/2021 2:33:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/4/2021
Meeting Type
Business
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5-b
Document Relationships
Agenda for May 4, 2021 Board Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2020's\2021\Agenda - 05-04-2021 Virtual Business Meeting
ORD-2021-011 An Ordinance amending the unified development Ordinance and 2030 comprehensive plan of Orange County
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2020-2029\2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
370
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
346 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 168 Perdita Holtz: Correct. These were not prohibited Countywide uses. <br /> 169 <br /> 170 Lamar Proctor: I saw on Special Use Permits, the Planning Director is allowed to modify those by, there's a list,for minor <br /> 171 changes and I think that's under 2.7.14; how many times can an applicant come back for a minor modification like that? <br /> 172 <br /> 173 Perdita Holtz: There isn't a limit to how many times they can come back but I will say, it's exceedingly rare. <br /> 174 <br /> 175 Craig Benedict: In my 22 years, less than five times. It is exceedingly rare because our SUP conditions that are approved <br /> 176 are very finite and specific to the project. <br /> 177 <br /> 178 Lamar Proctor: Asking directly about the 10 days, could we just make it 15 days? Is that crazy? <br /> 179 <br /> 180 Perdita Holtz: The Planning Board could vote to recommend that it be 15 days and it could go to the Board of County <br /> 181 Commissioners as the Planning Board's recommendation. <br /> 182 <br /> 183 Lamar Proctor: The exclusions used to apply to Conditional Districts and the new LIDO would remove that exclusion list, <br /> 184 correct? <br /> 185 <br /> 186 Perdita Holtz: It used to apply to Conditional Use Districts which no longer are allowed to be a zoning mechanism in North <br /> 187 Carolina. The whole construct of Conditional Use Districts is gone. <br /> 188 <br /> 189 Lamar Proctor: Under 1.6.2 that whole section was stricken and I think the footnote says it's in policy documents, does <br /> 190 taking that out of the LIDO change it in substantive way? <br /> 191 <br /> 192 Perdita Holtz: No, unless you consider that changing it would currently require a LIDO text amendment whereas changing <br /> 193 it in the future would only require an amendment to the Planning Board Rules of Procedures. <br /> 194 <br /> 195 Craig Benedict: When the LIDO was developed there was no separate policy mechanism for the advisory boards and over <br /> 196 the last 10 years the Commissioners and Attorneys' Office have put together policies for each of the advisory boards. <br /> 197 <br /> 198 Lamar Proctor: Who can make the Planning Board amendments? If it's just a policy? <br /> 199 <br /> 200 Perdita Holtz: It could start with staff,the Planning Board, or BOCC but the BOCC has to approve it. <br /> 201 <br /> 202 Lamar Proctor: I would love to see that 10 days become 15 days, that's a motion by me. Instead of a uniform 10 days <br /> 203 make it a uniform 15 days. <br /> 204 <br /> 205 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to require 15 days instead of 10 days for mailings. Seconded by Alexandra Allman. <br /> 206 <br /> 207 Lamar Proctor Yes <br /> 208 Charity Kirk No <br /> 209 Adam Beeman: No <br /> 210 Carrie Fletcher No <br /> 211 Whitney Watson No <br /> 212 Randy Marshall: No <br /> 213 Susan Hunter: No <br /> 214 Alexandra Allman Yes <br /> 215 Melissa Poole: No <br /> 216 David Blankfard: No <br /> 217 MOTION FAILED 8—2 <br /> 218 <br /> 219 Whitney Watson: I want to go back to the notice question, especially any kind of posted signage,while the LIDO had <br /> 220 plenty of places where it's very prescriptive, I'd like to add one more. Signage that's posted in a yard or the right-of-way <br /> 221 needs to meet standards for legibility and readability just like we expect billboards to be able to be read when someone is <br /> 222 driving by at 35 mph. There are a number that pop up around that western side of Orange County that I just can't read. If <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.