Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• Applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, <br /> • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and <br /> July 11, 2012 Planning Board, and <br /> • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form <br /> of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials <br /> entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their <br /> burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger finding <br /> that there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) <br /> of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use <br /> is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in <br /> these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into <br /> the record of these proceedings, including: <br /> • Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract, <br /> • Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, <br /> • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and <br /> July 11, 2012 Planning Board, <br /> • Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning <br /> Board regular meeting, and <br /> • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form <br /> of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials <br /> entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their <br /> burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve <br /> the Special Use Permit imposing recommended 4 conditions as detailed on page(s) 51 through <br /> 52 of the abstract package. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> The Board then took action on the ordinance amending the zoning atlas (Attachment 6) and <br /> the resolution concerning comprehensive plan consistency (Attachment 8). <br /> As you may recall, a recent State Supreme Court decision impacted how zoning atlas <br /> amendments are processed and acted upon. In the past, staff has produced an <br />