Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
10 <br /> 1 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their <br /> 2 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 5 <br /> 6 <br /> 7 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger finding <br /> 8 that there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) <br /> 9 of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is <br /> 10 in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these <br /> 11 regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into <br /> 14 the record of these proceedings, including: <br /> 15 <br /> 16 • Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract, <br /> 17 • Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, <br /> 18 • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and <br /> 19 July 11, 2012 Planning Board, <br /> 20 • Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning <br /> 21 Board regular meeting, and <br /> 22 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form <br /> 23 of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials <br /> 24 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their <br /> 25 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. <br /> 26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 27 <br /> 28 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve <br /> 29 the Special Use Permit imposing recommended 4 conditions as detailed on page(s) 51 through <br /> 30 52 of the abstract package. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 33 <br /> 34 The Board then took action on the ordinance amending the zoning atlas (Attachment 6) and the <br /> 35 resolution concerning comprehensive plan consistency(Attachment 8). <br /> 36 <br /> 37 As you may recall, a recent State Supreme Court decision impacted how zoning atlas <br /> 38 amendments are processed and acted upon. In the past, staff has produced an <br /> 39 Ordinance amending the zoning atlas containing a statement detailing how the <br /> 40 amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is <br /> 41 in the public interest. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Now, we are required to take 2 separate actions when dealing with a zoning atlas <br /> 44 amendment, specifically: <br />