Minutes 02-21-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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