Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz <br /> to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with the <br /> specific standards governing the development of Schools: Elementary, Middle, and <br /> Secondary as detailed within Section 5.8.4 of the UDO, as denoted on page(s) 53 <br /> through 67 of Attachment 10 of the abstract. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 5. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs <br /> to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with the <br /> specific standards relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: <br /> a. Sewage disposal facilities, <br /> b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and <br /> c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the <br /> site <br /> as detailed within Section 5.3.2 (B) of the UDO, as denoted on page 68 of Attachment <br /> 10 of the abstract. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 6. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs <br /> to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with <br /> Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO, specifically that: <br /> The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located <br /> where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. <br /> (IF THE MOTION IS TO AFFIRM) This motion to affirm is based on the following <br /> already entered into the record: <br /> • The applicant's testimony at the November 21, 2011 public hearing and <br /> the January 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting, <br /> • The application narrative providing documentation on the provision of <br /> water and wastewater treatment services to the project, <br /> • The approval of the project by the Orange County Fire Marshal, Solid <br /> Waste, NC DOT, and Planning staff. <br /> • Further a lack of evidence submitted into the record indicating that the <br /> applicant had not met their burden of proof. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 7. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br /> affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with Section <br /> 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO, specifically that: <br /> The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property <br /> (IF THE MOTION IS TO AFFIRM) This motion to affirm is based on the following <br /> already entered into the record: <br /> • Based on evidence presented at the November 21, 2011 public hearing <br /> and the January 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting, <br />