Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
I Commissioner Price asked for details on the buffer. <br />2 Michael Harvey said it is a 50 foot buffer. <br />3 <br />4 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to <br />5 close the public hearing. <br />6 <br />7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />8 <br />9 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br />10 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br />11 the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development <br />12 Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. <br />13 <br />14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />15 <br />16 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to <br />17 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br />18 the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as <br />19 detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. <br />20 <br />21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />22 <br />23 A motion was made Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm <br />24 the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the <br />25 provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as <br />26 detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. <br />27 <br />28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />29 <br />30 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to <br />31 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br />32 the provisions of 5.9.6 (c) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed <br />33 within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. <br />34 <br />35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />36 <br />37 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to <br />38 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with <br />39 the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as <br />40 detailed within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. <br />41 <br />42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />43 <br />44 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier <br />45 regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as follows there is sufficient <br />46 evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the <br />47 use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where <br />48 proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. <br />49 <br />