Minutes - 19851015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

00046 reduction or increase in minimal gross lard area generally required, and Article 7.4.4a regulates lesser areas than generally required. It states that no such reduction shall amount to more than 10% of the area generally required. In Article 7.3 the Board of Commissioners may make specific modifications but the provision indicates that where floor area and similar ratios as maximum permitted amounts of development and have been established by these regulations, the Board of County Commissioners shall not act in a particular case to modify such ratios or maximums. There is more than a 10% modification under consideration for approval. Planning Director Marvin Collins indicated agreement with the interpretation of Article 7.4.4 but referred to 7.3 which states: "Where actions, designs or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accord with applicable PD or general regulations, but the Board of County Commissioners make a finding, in the particular case, that public purposes are satisfed, to an equivalent or greater degree, the Board of County Commissioners may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case, provided that where floor area and similar ratios, as maximum permitted amounts of development have been established by these regulations, the Board of County Commissioners shall not act in a particular case to modify such ratios or maximums." Article 5 contains dimensional requirements and land use intensity ratios for the different zoning districts. The interpretation of Article 7.3 is that it does not apply to all dimensional requirements but only those ratios that are included as part of the Land Use Intensity System. Article 7.3 does give some flexibility to modify the 10% reduction. Susan Smith indicated that the reference to Article 7.3 has been part of the record since the first public hearing and specifically addressed by staff to any questions at that time. Commissioner Marshall indicated that the interpretations make the Ordinance less effective. The Ordinance does not serve the purpose for which it is intended and that is to have every citizen, developer, and person to be able to observe what is happening and know what to expect. It is important to deal fairly with everyone. When the Ordinance is watered down and changes are made which are hard to substantiate, it makes the Ordinance less and less effective. Chair Willhoit stated that Article 7.3 deals with the public purpose, and it is a question of how best that purpose is met. Commissioner Marshall questioned how far Article 7.3 could be taken and stated that it had not been used in previous requests. Marvin Collins commented that Article 7.3, second paragraph, stated above gives the Board latitude to modify any PD regulation as long as it is found that the public purpose has been satisfied. Susan Smith indicated that the negative finding found for landscaping was because the developer did not interpret the ordinance to address the requirements in the railroad right-of-way. There are conditions of approval attached that address the negative finding. Commissioner Walker asked about the railroad right-of-way and Smith indicated that an obstructions can be located within ten feet of the railroad. Chair Willhoit noted that the negative finding cited in Article 12.4 has been satified by the conditions attached to the project.