Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
-. <br />~~~/ <br />making a judgment about "hat's si;nificant enough to be referred back to the Planning <br />;'hoard doesn't Rork. Obviously-, it will be referred back on one occasion and not on - - <br />otl~~ers and the citizens Will have difficulty understanding >;h~' one thing has referred <br />and another was not. <br />COUNTY ATTORNEY GEOFFREX CLEDHILL, stated that a possible solution would be to <br />leave the Public Hearing open solely for tl~e purpose of hearing the Planning Board's <br />recommendation. He indicated that the concern Wliich caused him to write the letter was <br />that in reviewing the Planning Board's meeting minutes it became apparent that <br />information was coming into the Public Hearing process that was not a part of the Public <br />Hearing, either through staff reports or otherwise. All of that should occur before the <br />public ]rearing is closed because it is pertinent, valuable information. However, <br />deciding hoh to get it into the process is the problem. Leaving the Fublic Hearing open <br />until all that is left is a decision is one watt of getting this information into the <br />process. Limiting the last round of the Public Hearing is a way of accomplishing that <br />by stating that nothing will be heard at that point except the Planning Board's <br />recommendation. The Planning Board's recommendation could contain whatever information <br />had come to it outside of the Public Hearin . <br />LINK suggested that the statement be made that the 'Public Hearing is held open <br />until the Commissioner's receive the Plannin; Board's recommendation. <br />CHAIRMAN CAREY stated that "hen it is held open for the Planning Board's <br />recommendation it must be advertised as a Public Hearin. <br />GLEAHILL stated that if the meeting was adjourned until no new information Was <br />expected than it is not necessary to readvertise. <br />STEVE YUHASZ, Plannin Board member, stated tYrat he hoped that any information <br />coming before the Planning Board would be written and not verbal because the meetings <br />are barel~• able to cover all pertinent information as it is. If mare verbal comments <br />Were included they would not be able to complete the meetings in one evening. <br />GLEAHILL stated that it is the area of written comments, and in particular <br />technical information, that really is important here. <br />CHAIRMAN CAREY indicated that what he was hearin; was that the Commissioners wanted <br />to close the hearing and entertain the Planning Board's recommendation. <br />f. Nan-Residential Development Standards (1) Article 5.1.2 - Schedule for <br />Non-Residential Development <br />In summary this item Was presented to receive citizen comment on the <br />proposal to proti-ide floor area ratio (FAR) requirements for non-residential uses <br />permitted in residential zoning districts Which are consistent With the actual floor <br />areas of existing facilities. Controlin; the intensity of a land use or the degree to <br />which a property is used is one of planning's goals. Residential land use regulations <br />almost alwa;e°s deal With dcnsit~-. In non-residential districts, intensity is most often <br />controlled through the use of standards that regulate the bulk of a building. Floor <br />area ratios (F~,Rs), in conjunction With height limitations, are the principal standards <br />used in the Orange Countt- Zoning Ordinance to control building t•olume. Floor area ratio <br />is defined as the maximum floor area permitted for each square foot of land area. In <br />recent years, the Orange Countt• School Board has submitted tko requests for a variance <br />of FAR to permit an Existing school to e~:pand or a new school to be built. The <br />inability of the School Board to complp with the FAR requirements without purchasing <br />sizable land tracts lzas raised the question as to Hhether or not the ratios are too log:, <br />