Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br /> Staff respon : This language is being deleted from all zoning district charts that contain it and <br /> new specific development standard language is proposed to be added to direct users to Sections <br /> 6.2.5 and 6.2.6 if more than one principal use or principal structure is being proposed on a non- <br /> residential,zoning lot. The reason is that changes are being proposed for Section 6.2.5 and 6.2.6 <br /> that will apply requirements differently depending on Land Use categories, so it is impractical to <br /> reiterate the text of the two Sections in the zoning district charts. Directing users to the Sections if <br /> the situation applies to them is more practical. <br /> 6. The definition for"Research Facility"could be more clear. <br /> Staff response: The proposed definition has been revised and is included in Attachment 2. <br /> 7. There was a question about the language in Section 4.2.5 regarding impervious surface limits <br /> which staff answered at the hearing. <br /> 8. There was a question about the "collapsed" Land Use Buffer Schedule (Table 6.8.12.C) which <br /> staff answered at the hearing. <br /> Draft minutes of the November 21, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing are included in Attachment 3. <br /> Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.3.10 of the Unified <br /> Development Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in <br /> writing prior to the Planning Board's recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be <br /> considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also <br /> submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the <br /> BOCC receiving the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. <br /> Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the <br /> proposed UDO text amendments based on the following: <br /> a) The UDO text amendments are reasonably necessary to correct errors/inconsistencies <br /> between the UDO and Comprehensive Plan; and, <br /> b) The UDO text amendments are consistent with the policies, objectives, principles or <br /> standards governing the physical development of the County. <br /> Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the proposed UDO text <br /> amendments at its December 7, 2011 meeting. The Planning Board voted unanimously to <br /> recommend approval of the proposed UDO text amendments as included in Attachment 2. <br /> The minutes for the December 7, 2011 Planning Board meeting are provided in Attachment 4. <br /> FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 in Attachment 1. <br /> RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the Board: <br /> 1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation of approval; <br /> 2. Close the public hearing; and <br /> 3. Adopt the Ordinance of Approval for the UDO text amendments contained within <br /> Attachment 2. <br />