Agenda - 05-01-2012 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 1 b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and 2 c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the 3 site 4 as detailed within Section 5.3.2 (B) of the UDO, as denoted on page 68 of Attachment 5 10 of the abstract. 6 VOTE. UNANIMOUS 7 8 6. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs 9 to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with 10 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO, specifically that: 11 The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located 12 where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. 13 (IF THE MOTION IS TO AFFIRM) This motion to affirm is based on the following 14 already entered into the record: 15 • The applicant's testimony at the November 21, 2011 public hearing and 16 the January 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting, 17 18 • The application narrative providing documentation on the provision of 19 water and wastewater treatment services to the project, 20 21 . The approval of the project by the Orange County Fire Marshal, Solid 22 Waste, NC DOT, and Planning staff. 23 24 • Further a lack of evidence submitted into the record indicating that the 25 applicant had not met their burden of proof. 26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 27 7. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 28 affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with Section 29 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO, specifically that: 30 The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property 31 (IF THE MOTION IS TO AFFIRM) This motion to affirm is based on the following 32 already entered into the record: 33 • Based on evidence presented at the November 21, 2011 public hearing 34 and the January 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting, 35 • A letter composed by Ms. JoEllen Mason, a local realtor, providing an 36 analysis of the project's economic impact and that the proposed 37 addition(s) will not have a negative impact on adjacent property value. 38 • Further the Board made this determination based on a lack of evidence 39 submitted into the record indicating that the applicant had not met their 40 burden of proof. 41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 42 43 8. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 44 affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with Section 45 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO, specifically that: