Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 8/9/2021 <br /> 1 Specifically, the applicant is appealing a Final and Binding determination made by the Zoning Officer <br /> 2 related to the applicability of Section(s): <br /> 3 • Section 1.1.2 Headings and Illustrations; <br /> 4 • 6.8.6 (B)Applicability—Land Use Buffers; and <br /> 5 • 6.8.6 (D) Land Use Buffer Table <br /> 6 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). This case has been assigned permit number BA21- <br /> 7 0001 in the County's permit management system, which can be accessed here: Click here to access our <br /> 8 portal <br /> 9 <br /> 10 In summary, there is a dispute over the application of land use buffers as detailed in Section(s) 6.8.6 <br /> 11 (B) and (D) of the UDO. The southern property is being subdivided (i.e. creating additional parcels). <br /> 12 As part of the project, a road right-of-way has been located along the northern property line of the <br /> 13 applicant, who argues the UDO requires a 30 ft. land use buffer as her property is a bona-fide farm. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 As articulated in Attachment(s) 1 and 3, staff determined existing language imposes an inconsistent <br /> 16 standard with respect to the enforcement of land use buffers. This determination is supported by <br /> 17 language contained in Section 1.1.2 of the UDO. A separate process to amend the UDO, addressing <br /> 18 the identified inconsistency, is moving forward. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Michael Harvey: Asked the board to accept the amended abstract referencing a 50 foot buffer. It should reference a 30 <br /> 22 foot buffer and on page 32 of the agenda package. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Leon Meyers: Asked the board if there were any objections to the amended agenda package. It is entered as amended <br /> 25 to 30 foot. Asked to provide summary timeline of determination. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Michael Harvey: Stated he will need to be sworn to provide testimony. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Michael Harvey is sworn in for testimony <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Michael Harvey: Proceeds with case facts from abstract. (Paused 1:43:33) <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Leon Meyers: Asked the board if there were any questions for Michael. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Jeff Scott: Asked a question referencing page 16 staff comment about the potential property might be in violation of <br /> 36 land use regulation, How does that factor in how we make a decision on whether or not this buffer? <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Michael Harvey: Stated it doesn't what so ever. It is an advisory opinion offered to Mr. Petesch and not subject to <br /> 39 appeal or your authority. If I made that determination final and binding, it would be subject to appeal. But that isn't the <br /> 40 basis for your consideration this evening. That is for discussion of Ms. Arter and the Planning staff of Orange County. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Beth Bronson: Asked to clarify 6.8.6 states that no building or structure shall be erected. In this interpretation, staff did <br /> 43 not consider a road to be a structure? <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Michael Harvey: Stated that was correct. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 Beth Bronson: Asked Mr. Bryan if there were any case in which that has been argued. <br /> 48 <br /> 10 <br />