Minutes 09-18-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Michael Harvey: Good evening, once again, Michael Harvey, Orange County Planning, here to present the Planning Board recommendation concerning the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit to allow for the development of public utilities, specifically the solar array on a 53- acre portion of a 122-acre parcel of property off of White Cross Road in Orange County. As part of this item, you have Attachment 1, which is the July 11, 2012 Planning Board abstract. Attachment 2 is additional information supplied by the applicant at the July 11, 2012 Planning Board meeting. Attachment 3 is the excerpts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. Attachment 4 is the excerpts of the approved July 11, 2012 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes. Attachment 5 is a letter from the applicant accepting the recommended conditions. Attachment 6 is the Planning Board recommended Findings of Fact. You also have at your place a script to assist you in making the required motions associated with this project. As you will recall, this item was presented at the May 29th Quarterly Public Hearing. There were certain questions asked during the hearing, which we have included in Attachment 1, the Planning Board abstract for your review. You will note that the Planning Board at their July 11 th regular meeting found unanimously that the applicant had met their burden with respect to all facets with respect to the project and various standards of the UDO. As we articulated in the script, as well as articulated in Attachment 6, there are specific references with compliance Section 2.2 and 2.7(3) UDO Class A Special Use permit application submittal requirements. Section 2.7.5 indicating that all applicable notification criteria has been adhered to, Sections 3.3 and 6.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance had been adhered to. As a result the application was deemed to be compliant with respect to UDO submittal requirements. Compliance with Sections 5.9 and 6.8.6, the specific land use regulations governing the development of utilities and development of land use buffers on the property, compliance with the specific findings of fact contained in Section 5.3.2. The Planning Board also made affirmative findings on Sections 5.3.2 (A) (2), a, b, and c; all of which is contained within your packet. The Planning Board recommended approval of this project. The Planning staff also supports the issuance of the Special Use Permit. There are going to be a total of six conditions as part of this project. The applicant is technically meeting all of those conditions and we believe there is sufficient evidence articulating this fact already present within the record. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that you have at this time. Commissioner Hemminger: Isn't it possible to put one of these on the screen and group them that way. John Roberts: There has to be a record in case it's appealed. Unlike your normal minutes, a quasi-judicial hearing has to be verbatim, so there has to be something for a judge to read if a case is appealed to Superior Court. Putting it up on the screen I don't think transfers very well to a transcript. Commissioner Hemminger: It would be helpful, though, I think, for the public to see what we're reading off instead of just reading off very quickly, to be able to see what we're actually