Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
14 <br /> l the provisions of Section 5.9 and 8.8.0of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, <br /> 2 oa detailed mn pages 81 through 83of the abstract package. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 5 <br /> 6 A motion was made by Commissioner MoKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemmingmr to � <br /> 7 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br /> 8 the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as <br /> 9 detailed on pages 94 through 95 of the abstract package. <br /> 11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> /+ A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee that there is <br /> 15 sufficient evidence in the record that the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the <br /> 16 Ordinance as follows: <br /> 18 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 <br /> 19 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety <br /> 20 and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according <br /> 21 to the plan as submitted. <br /> 23 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into <br /> 24 the record of these proceedings, including: <br /> 26 0 Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract, <br /> 27 * Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, <br /> 28 a Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and <br /> 29 July 11, 2012 Planning Board, <br /> 30 0 Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning <br /> 31 Board regular meeting, <br /> 32 0 Additional information supplied to the Planning Board by the <br /> 33 applicant at its July 11, 2012 regular meeting, and <br /> 34 0 A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form <br /> 35 of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials <br /> 36 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their <br /> 37 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A)of the UDO. <br /> 39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 41 - A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee <br /> 42 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 <br /> 43 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property. <br />