Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-20-2012 - 6b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2012
>
Agenda - 11-20-2012 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 11-20-2012 - 6b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2015 11:52:40 AM
Creation date
11/16/2012 4:16:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/20/2012
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6b
Document Relationships
Minutes 11-20-2012
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2012
S Planning - Weekly Homes LLC re ICP Dunhill, LLC Special Use Permit - Agenda 11-20-2012 - 6b
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Various Documents\2010 - 2019\2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2 <br /> Planning Board Recommendation: At its October 3, 2012 regular meeting, the Planning Board <br /> voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project finding that: <br /> 1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of <br /> Section 2.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). <br /> 2. The property is of sufficient size to support the proposed development and the proposed <br /> density is consistent with the provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Joint <br /> Planning Area Land Use Plan. <br /> 3. The proposed land use buffer complies with the provisions of the UDO. <br /> 4. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR, <br /> Orange County Health, State Clearing House) indicate there are no concerns associated <br /> with the request. <br /> 5. A formal Environmental Impact Statement is not required per Section 6.18 of the UDO. <br /> 6. The applicant has submitted sufficient documentation denoting compliance with specific <br /> development standards as detailed within Section(s) 5.15.6 and Article 7 of the UDO. <br /> 7. The proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan <br /> concerning development, including: <br /> a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and <br /> designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities <br /> sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy <br /> consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. <br /> b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental <br /> conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and <br /> community character. <br /> c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program <br /> and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes <br /> land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. <br /> 8. The applicant has submitted sufficient documentation denoting compliance with Section <br /> 5.3.2 (A) Special Uses— General Standards of the UDO. <br /> 9. The lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the record demonstrating the <br /> request is not in compliance with the various provisions of the UDO. <br /> The Planning Board voted unanimously to not recommend the applicant be required to install a <br /> trail connecting to the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC) property to the east. Further, the <br /> Board modified a recommended condition relating to the development of geothermal wells. The <br /> Board unanimously recommended prohibiting `open loop' geothermal wells from being <br /> developed within the subdivision rather than an outright ban on all geothermal well systems. <br /> The Planning Board concluded that an outright ban was too restrictive. <br /> Please refer to Attachment 6 for additional detail. It should be noted that in rendering its <br /> decision, the Planning Board recommended the imposition of several conditions. The applicant <br /> has agreed to the imposition of these conditions in writing. Please refer to Attachment 5 for <br /> additional detail. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.