Minutes 09-01-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

of County Commissioners and to come back at the February 2016 QPH and to post the current law on the planning website. Commissioner Rich made a friendly amendment to solicit remarks from Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Price accepted. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that this motion reflects the concerns that were mentioned tonight: how many unrelated people can live in a structure, relationships, residency requirement, and to look at past comments from previous meetings. Commissioner Jacobs said he meant it to include all comments including those from the May 2015 QPH. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Class A Special Use Permit— Solar Array off White Cross Road in Bingham Township (Receipt of Planning Board Recommendation — No Additional Public Comment or Testimony Allowed) The Board considered receiving the Planning Board recommendation, closing the public hearing, and making a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application submitted by White Cross Solar LLC and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. William and Carol Byron, proposing the development of a solar array in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-Public Utility of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), approve the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 5, and make a motion approving the SUP. Pat Mallet, Orange County Current Planning, reviewed this item and all the materials in the abstract. He said page 49, Attachment 5, shows all the findings of fact, and conditions of approval. He said page 50 reviews all the application components and shows that all the requirements set forth in the UDO were certified as met. He said page 51 shows that all notification requirements were met. He said pages 52-57 show requirements for special use permits and solar arrays, noting all findings were in the affirmative. He said page 58 shows the recommendation of the Planning Board, which is consistent with staff's recommendation, noting that all findings of fact have been met. Pat reminded the Board that the applicant has had extensive conversations with the neighboring properties, and at the time of the May Quarterly Public Hearing there were still two neighbors with concerns about the buffer. He said Item 1 (Attachment 6) speaks to the buffer treatment, which is above and beyond what the code requires. Chair McKee said this is a SUP, and no additional comment or testimony would be allowed. ITEM: 5-b-Attachment 7 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to enter Attachments 1-6, and revised Attachment 7 into the minutes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Michael Harvey presented this portion: