Zoning in Oriental

I previously mentioned proposed changes to our zoning ordinance. I just transmitted the following e-mail to the town manager:

"Dear Bob,
I just came across a School of Government handout prepared by Professor David Owens of the Institute of Government concerning Published Notice for Hearings on Rezonings and Zoning Text Amendments. On rereading that handout, I wonder if the notice published May 18 in Pamlico News and the week of May 26 in County Compass meets the requirements of NCGS 160A-364. The relevant portion of Professor Owens' handout says "the notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the community once a week for two calendar weeks,...." The wording seems to imply that the notice would be published in the same newspaper. I assume you checked with the Town Attorney on this point.

More to the point, Professor Owens explains, "The notice must be sufficiently detailed to allow citizens to discern what is being proposed and whether they would be affected." He goes on to say, "The notice should clearly indicate: (1) what property is potentially affected; (2) the nature of the proposed regulation; and, (3) the time and place of the public hearing." Arguably, the notice as published only meets requirement (3).

Before addressing the substance, it seems to me that, if Article XV concerning amendments to the GMO is so deficient and confusing as to require amendment, the hearing on this amendment should be held separately. Any amended version of Article XV should then be followed in considering the other amendments.

I believe the public notice is inadequate in the following respects:
Article IV: Table of Permissible Uses - The proposed amendment introduces three new or modified categories of uses - Religious institutions including associated residential structures and buildings. Taken together with other amendments, this will affect other property owners; Travel Trailer/RV; Residential Nursing Care Institutions.
Readers of the public notice will have no idea that these measures are under consideration.

Article VI: Development Standards for Section 80 - introduces standards for town houses, exempting them from minimum lot width, minimum lot size and setbacks.
This is a significant new departure, to which the public notice calls no attention.

Article VIII: Signs - This is a complete rewrite. It is almost impossible from the version published on the town's web site to ascertain which provisions of the proposed ordinance are new. I notice the draft requires new signs to comply with the building code of the town. I have been unable to find a copy of the Town of Oriental's building code.

Article XV: Amendments - I believe this draft should be considered first. If changes are adopted, the procedure as amended should be used for considering the others. Even though it is possible to access a very helpful compilation of the suggestions incorporated in the proposed amendment, it is not possible to tell from the published notice what is being proposed and how it would affect individual citizens.

Article XVI: Word Interpretations and Basic Definitions - The major innovation here is to provide definitions for a townhouse and a townhouse development. It is not possible to tell this from the public notice. There are significant issues associated with the adoption of this amendment in conjunction with the proposed amendment to Article VI.

I believe we have time to do this right.