Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-26-1990
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1990
>
Agenda - 02-26-1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 3:58:24 PM
Creation date
10/30/2017 3:56:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/26/1990
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
/7 ' � a 2b <br /> 1 making a judgment about what's significant enough to be referred back to the Planning <br /> 2 Board doesn't work. Obviously, it will be referred back on one occasion and not on <br /> 3 others and the citizens will have difficulty understanding why one thing was referred <br /> 4 and another was not. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 COUNTY ATTORNEY GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, stated that a possible solution would be to <br /> 7 leave the Public Hearing open solely for the purpose of hearing the Planning Board's <br /> 3 recommendation. He indicated that the concern which caused him to write the letter was <br /> 9 that in reviewing the Planning Board's meeting minutes it became apparent that. <br /> 0 information was coining into the Public Hearing process that was not a part of the Public <br /> 1 Hearing, either through staff reports or otherwise. All of that should occur before the <br /> 2 public hearing is closed because it is pertinent, valuable information. However, <br /> 3 deciding how to get it into the process is the problem. Leaving the Public Hearing open <br /> 4 until all that is left is a decision is one way of getting this information into the <br /> 5 process. Limiting the last round of the Public Hearing is a way of accomplishing that <br /> 6 by stating that nothing will be heard at that point except the Planning Board's <br /> 7 recommendation. The Planning Board's recommendation could contain whatever information <br /> 3 had come to it outside of the Public Hearing. <br /> 9 • <br /> 0 LINK suggested that the statement be made that the "Public Hearing is held open <br /> 1 until the Commissioner's receive the Planning Board's recommendation. <br /> 2 <br /> 3 CHAIRMAN CAREY stated that when it is held open for the Planning Board's <br /> 4 recommendation it must be advertised as a Public Hearing. <br /> 5 at if the was urned until no ne <br /> GLEDHILL stated th me adjo ' <br /> 6 - � - _ - etingYy - w information was <br /> 7 e x pected se.:. _ . <br /> g . . _ _ __ necessary t readverti ;...:..:.- .. _ . .: . .. . ___ <br /> - cted than it is not n _ . -= -- hop <br /> to <br /> 0 � <br /> STEVE Y[IHASZ" lann�nngBoarddwouldebe written not verbal that any information - <br /> , Planning - <br /> coming before the P g rbal because the meetings <br /> I are barely able to cover all pertinent information as it is. If more verbal comments <br /> 2 meetings evening. . <br /> they would__ _ . ... . ... . ......,..- -..: _ �,n,s in one e�...,-..:. ..... ..... --- .... -__-.... <br /> ry complete the m <br /> 3 were included t - - - <br /> u not. be able to <br /> GLEDHILL stated that i <br /> 4 � t is the area of written comments, and in particular <br /> re. .�-.,..._ . = <br /> technical information that.,,really- is.... . , ._.- .. . . . ...� :-.._.:�.:.,. .. . . ._. <br /> important <br /> _ h <br /> 8 o, . l the Planning Bo . <br /> 7 J_?- • ; CHAIRMAN CAREY. indicated that what he as hearing was that the Commissioners wanted--._N - --�� <br /> to,close the_hearing.,and..entertsiri_th.. _, - �, ard's recommendation.. :. __ �-,;.._� ,__..__:_- <br /> =..� pm _.t _a d,::.r_ ..l.,..-5..: .. ...� le for _= <br /> 9 -=: __ f: Non-Residential Development Standards (1) Article 5.1.2, -_ Schedule <br /> 0 . - ;- _- Non-Residential- Development...-- __ : . - <br /> 1 presented to receive citizen comment on the <br /> In summary ' <br /> 2 <br /> proposal floors item was <br /> ary th - ..._..- - - <br /> p sal to"pro�•ide area ratio- (F4R1-requirements for non-residential uses <br /> .3-'permitted ,in residential .zoning_districts which are consistent with the actual floor <br /> 4 - areas of existing facilities.:._.-Controling the intensity of a land use or the degree to <br /> 5_: <br /> which-a property is used is one of planning's goals. Residential land use regulations: _. - <br /> alm . - - - a bulk .....___ <br /> 6--almost-always-deal- with always deal Fith density. In non-residential districts, intensity--is most often__ <br /> through the use of standards thatt'regula <br /> gcontrolled to the bulb of a building; Floor _ <br /> g _ area: ratios-- (FARs), in conjunction with height limitations; are the principal standards _ <br /> 0.`.., <br /> used in the Orange= County-. Zoning Ordinance to control building volume. Floor area ratio <br /> is defined as the maximum floor area permitted for each square foot of land area. In - - - <br /> I - recent-years, the Orange County School Board has submitted two requests for- a variance <br /> 2 of FAR to permit an existing school to, expand or a new school to be. built. The <br /> 3" <br /> inability:of' the School Board to comply with the FAR requirements without purchasing ` <br /> ' question'as to whether or not the'Jratios are too law, <br /> 5 sizable land tracts has raised the q re <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.