Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
exist when recombined with the parcel to the east, will not be allowed to have any drive access <br /> onto Pathway Court. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz: I just want to be clear on where we are imposing that condition. I <br /> don't know whether, in a general rezoning, we are allowed to impose conditions like that. <br /> Michael Harvey: You're not imposing as part of the general rezoning, you're imposing as part <br /> of the special use permit line. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz: I just want to be clear, we're imposing it on the special use permit <br /> that sits on the rest of the lots and not on this particular one. <br /> Michael Harvey: Correct. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br /> close the public hearing. NOTE — once this is done staff cannot answer questions or provide <br /> additional detail. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> The BOCC then took action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings of fact <br /> have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or deny. <br /> The cadence on taking action was as follows: <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to <br /> affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br /> the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development <br /> Ordinance, as detailed on pages 39 through 41 of the abstract package. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br /> affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br /> the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as <br /> detailed on page 42 of the abstract package. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to <br /> affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br /> the provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, <br /> as detailed on pages 43 through 46 of the abstract package. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />