Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to <br /> affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br /> the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as <br /> detailed on pages 47 through 48 of the abstract package. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger that <br /> there is sufficient evidence in the record that complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the <br /> Ordinance in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety, and general <br /> welfare if located where proposed in the development and operated as the plan is submitted. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner, McKee seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz finding <br /> there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of <br /> the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general <br /> welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as <br /> submitted. <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 Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger finding <br /> there is sufficient evidence in the record that the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) <br /> of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property. <br /> This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into <br /> the record of these proceedings, including: <br />