Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> 1 Michael Harvey: You're not imposing as part of the general rezoning, you're imposing as part <br /> 2 of the special use permit line. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Commissioner Yuhasz: I just want to be clear, we're imposing it on the special use permit <br /> 5 that sits on the rest of the lots and not on this particular one. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Michael Harvey: Correct. <br /> 8 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close <br /> 9 the public hearing. NOTE — once this is done staff cannot answer questions or provide <br /> 10 additional detail. <br /> 11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 12 <br /> 13 The BOCC then took action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings of fact <br /> 14 have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or deny. <br /> 15 The cadence on taking action was as follows: <br /> 16 <br /> 17 <br /> 18 <br /> 19 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to <br /> 20 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br /> 21 the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development <br /> 22 Ordinance, as detailed on pages 39 through 41 of the abstract package. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 25 <br /> 26 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br /> 27 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br /> 28 the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as <br /> 29 detailed on page 42 of the abstract package. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 32 <br /> 33 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to <br /> 34 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br /> 35 the provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, <br /> 36 as detailed on pages 43 through 46 of the abstract package. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 39 <br /> 40 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to <br /> 41 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br /> 42 the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as <br /> 43 detailed on pages 47 through 48 of the abstract package. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />