Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 8/9/2021 <br /> 1 specific verse general, that is true. Referenced the case that Mr. Hornik spoke about and that it brought up property <br /> 2 rights. We are all neighbors, it isnt who you like, it is what the Orange County BOCC drafted in this. So you might look <br /> 3 at the chart itself and if it makes sense. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Leon Meyers: Asked the board if they would like to extend the meeting time. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 <br /> 8 MOTION Jeff Scott made motion to extend meeting to 10;45pm <br /> 9 Seconded by Kent Qandil <br /> 10 VOTE: Unanimous <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Beth Bronson: Stated she wanted to make sure we are discussing the interpretation of 6.8.6b and d. and in 6.8.3 it does <br /> 13 state that in some cases the strict section of the ordinance will have no useful purpose in which case the planning <br /> 14 director can modify the buffer and landscape and make that determination. This would be the text that referencing farm <br /> 15 land. Page 392 of the ordinance. That is the only location within section 6 that active farm land is discussed.6.8.3.a <br /> 16 subsection 2. Is there a request for this determination? This is the text for active farm land is in the buffer and that <br /> 17 would be the text. Continues to read from LIDO 6.8.3 a subsection 2. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Leon Meyers: Stated he think he understands the question. We are asked to make a judgement about a staff <br /> 20 interpretation. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Leon Meyers: Asked for a motion to grant the appeal or deny the appeal. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Beth Bronson: Stated it was very tough to think about the heading usage and illustrations when so much of the UDO is <br /> 25 depending on these tables to clarify that text. Because there is no text on the priority of R-1 and what that means and <br /> 26 preserving undeveloped areas. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Nathan Robinson: Based on the plain reading <br /> 30 <br /> 31 MOTION made by Nathan Robinson maintain the decision that Michael Harvey made the basis for the motion is the text <br /> 32 passage stating where the text controls recognizing there is a conflict between the applicability and the heading in the <br /> 33 table. We cant ignore the statement the text controls. Secondly in accordance with the legal guidance when there is a <br /> 34 difference in we have to differ back to property rights. We cant resolve the ambiguity here. My motion is to uphold the <br /> 35 decision by Michael Harvey on the basis we have to defer back to the property rights of the potential developer and the <br /> 36 statement that the text takes precedence over the tables. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Seconded by Jeff Scott <br /> 39 <br /> 40 VOTE: 4-1 vote <br /> 41 Nathan Robinson-Yes <br /> 42 Jeff Scott-Yes <br /> 43 Leon Meyers-Yes <br /> 44 Kent Qandil-Yes <br /> 45 Beth Bronson- Opposed <br /> 46 <br /> 47 <br /> 48 AGENDA ITEM 7: ADJOURNMENT <br /> 49 <br /> 50 <br /> 19 <br />