Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-01-2015 - 5b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2015
>
Agenda - 09-01-2015 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 09-01-2015 - 5b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2015 10:01:53 AM
Creation date
8/31/2015 9:58:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/1/2015
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5b
Document Relationships
2016-198 Planning - White Cross Solar LLC and William and Carol Byron - Special Use Permit
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Contracts and Agreements\General Contracts and Agreements\2010's\2016
2016-198 Planning - White Cross Solar LLC and William and Carol Byron - Special Use Permit
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Various Documents\2010 - 2019\2016
Minutes 09-01-2015
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
64 <br /> Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 7 <br /> of the abstract package. Second. Vote. <br /> NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the <br /> applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO, <br /> the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying <br /> the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and <br /> substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO. <br /> e. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board <br /> concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of <br /> the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within <br /> Attachment 7 of the abstract package. Second. Vote. <br /> NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the <br /> applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO, <br /> the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying <br /> the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and <br /> substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO. <br /> f A motion will need to be made regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of <br /> the Ordinance as follows <br /> (NOTE — Whomever makes the motion will have to cite the `evidence' in the <br /> record utilized justifying the motion to approve or deny. Attachment 5 contains <br /> the recommendations of the Planning Board including the evidence utilized to <br /> reach the conclusion. This `evidence' must be spelled out explicitly by the <br /> Commissioner making the motion. <br /> If the motion is to deny then the Commissioner making the motion will have to <br /> spell out explicitly the evidence within the record utilized to justify a negative <br /> finding): <br /> i. Motion finding either there is or is not sufficient evidence in the record <br /> the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the <br /> use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general <br /> welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according <br /> to the plan as submitted. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.