Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 12.1.21 <br />1 <br />SUMMARY NOTES 1 <br />ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 <br />NOVEMBER 3, 2021 3 <br />ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 <br /> 5 <br />NOTE: A quorum is not required for Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee meetings or Training Sessions. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Due to current public health concerns, the ORC meeting/training session was virtual. Members of the Planning Board and staff 8 <br />participated in the meeting remotely. 9 <br /> 10 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair), Cedar 11 <br />Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor, Cheeks Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township 12 <br />Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, At-Large Representative; 13 <br />Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Whitney Watson, At-Large 14 <br />Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative; 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; 17 <br />Ashley Moncado, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Support 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 20 21 <br />AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – DECRIMINALIZATION OF ORDINANCE 22 VIOLATIONS- To review proposed UDO amendments in response to Session Law 2021-138 (Senate Bill 23 <br />300) which decriminalized violations of certain types of ordinances, including ordinance regulating 24 <br />planning and development. 25 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 26 <br /> 27 <br />Michael Harvey gave the Planning Board members background and information regarding the need to amend the UDO in 28 <br />response to legislative changes regarding decriminalization of violations as it related to some planning and development land 29 <br />use regulations and answered questions. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Charity Kirk: We have to do this because the state has made a law change, we don’t really have a choice. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Michael Harvey: Correct, state law now says you can no longer do this (i.e. impose criminal penalties) to enforce a land use 34 <br />regulation. We’re engaging in an ordinance amendment to make sure we are consistent with state law. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Lamar Proctor: You are still permitted to seek criminal charges for some violations, right? 37 <br /> 38 <br />Michael Harvey: Correct, we still have legal authority to seek a criminal charge for a violation of erosion control and flood plain 39 <br />regulations. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Statler Gilfillen: This is mostly procedural and you’ve not had experiences in the past where you’ve ever had to formally file a 42 <br />criminal charge. 43 <br /> 44 <br />Michael Harvey: Correct, in 25 years as a planner and being an enforcement officer, I have never filed a criminal charge for 45 <br />violation of land use regulations. 46 <br /> 47 <br />Statler Gilfillen: As an extreme hypothetical, if someone had 100 acres and decided to bring in truckloads of nuclear waste and 48 <br />dump it in the middle of the property and they do it consciously and willfully, where does something like that fall? 49 <br /> 50 <br />Michael Harvey: We would seek an order of cessation and abatement through the court system. We could not seek criminal 51 <br />charges any longer. The federal or state governments may be able to seek some sort of criminal redress but we cannot. 52 <br /> 53