Minutes 05-18-2021 Virtual Business meeting

Browse Search

7 of 10 days but not more than 25 days (NCGS 160D-602(a)). Residents have also sent written comments to the Board of County Commissioners; these comments are viewable on the Google Group archive page: https://groups.google.com/g/ocbocc. No written comments were delivered to the Planning Department offices prior to the May 6, 2021 9:00 a.m. deadline. Additionally, there was discussion over the proposal by staff to add the "option to mailed notice for large-scale zoning map amendments" (NCGS 160D-602(b) to the UDO (Section 2.8.7(D)(1)). Staff has prepared information (Attachment 4) to help inform discussions on both of these issues. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its April 7, 2021 regular meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendments. Materials and links related to the Planning Board's review were part of the May 4 public hearing materials. Board of Adjustment Review of Rules of Procedure: The Board of Adjustment (BOA) began review of the revisions to its Rules of Procedure (ROP) at its April 12, 2021 meeting and will continue review at a subsequent meeting. Materials for these meetings are available at: http://orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Board-of-Adjustment-24. As a quasi-judicial board, the BOA has amendment authority over its ROP. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: 1. Statement of Approval and Consistency indicating the text amendments are reasonable and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 1. 2. Amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and 2030 Comprehensive Plan as contained in Attachment 2. 3. Amendments to the Planning Board's Rules of Procedure as contained in Attachment 3. Perdita Holtz, Planner, said this item is to further consider the UDO Amendments needed to conform to a new chapter of the state statute, 160-D. She said a Public Hearing on the amendments was held on May 4, 2021, where discussion focused on revisions to public notice requirements. She said, as a result of the discussion, staff prepared attachment 4 of the agenda abstract. She said depending on the type of review, Orange County's review process includes neighborhood information meetings (not required by state statutes); notices mailed to residents who lives within 1000 feet of a subject property; as well as signs for the neighborhood information meetings; and mailing notices of planning board meetings (not required by state statutes). She said State statute only requires mailed notices for public hearings to abutting property owners. She said there is no staff recommendation to scale back the mailed notices to state required minimums. She said in Orange County, at least two mailed notices are sent out. She said the current proposed revision is to reduce the minimum of 15 days notice to 10 days, in keeping with the statutory language. Perdita Holtz said the second topic is the alternative notice to mailed notice for large- scale map amendments. She said at the public hearing, some Commissioners wanted to include parameters on when the alternative option may be used. She said staff suggested two: first, add language that would allow alternative notices only on County initiated amendments; or second, only if mailing has already occurred earlier in a project process, which would include things like public outreach meetings, neighborhood information meetings, or the planning board meeting. She said the Manager recommends the Board approve the Statement of Consistency, the UDO plan amendments, and the amendments to the Planning Board's Rules of Procedure.