Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
15 <br /> 1 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into <br /> 2 the record of these proceedings, including: <br /> 3 <br /> 4 . Applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, <br /> 5 . Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and <br /> 6 July 11, 2012 Planning Board, <br /> 7 • Testimony from Mr. Richard Kirkland at the May 29, 2012 <br /> 8 Quarterly Public Hearing relating to the use maintaining and <br /> 9 enhancing the value of adjacent property, and <br /> 10 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form <br /> 11 of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials <br /> 12 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their <br /> 13 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. <br /> 14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 15 <br /> 16 - A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger <br /> 17 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 <br /> 18 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be <br /> 19 located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the <br /> 20 County as embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into <br /> 23 the record of these proceedings, including: <br /> 24 <br /> 25 0 Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract, <br /> 26 • Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, <br /> 27 • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and <br /> 28 July 11, 2012 Planning Board, <br /> 29 • Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning <br /> 30 Board regular meeting, and <br /> 31 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form <br /> 32 of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials <br /> 33 entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their <br /> 34 burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. <br /> 35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 36 <br /> 37 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve <br /> 38 the Special Use Permit imposing recommended 6 conditions as detailed on page 98 of the <br /> 39 abstract package. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 42 <br /> 43 <br />