Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• <br /> • <br /> • <br /> 061 Page i0 <br /> Collins asked the Board to speak specifically to <br /> the design. <br /> Kramer felt the added lanes may not be sufficient <br /> for St. Mary's Road. Shanklin" noted that traffic <br /> on St. Mary's was not related to the commercial <br /> area. Kramer withdrew his comment. <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive findin <br /> and d and 7. 15. 10b) . Yuhasz secondednthe'mot0iona) <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of 6.24 f) 1-3. Kramer <br /> seconded the motion. <br /> Shanklin inquired about specific landscaping. <br /> Smith noted the applicant had specified a screening - <br /> requirement on the plan which is described in the <br /> ordinance. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 6.24 e) 3-4. <br /> Kramer seconded the motion. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous <br /> Smith informed the Board that they could consider <br /> the negative findings . as is in making their <br /> decision on the project or could attach conditions <br /> of approval to address these findings. <br /> Shanklin suggested that the Board consider the <br /> conditions whether or not the project is <br /> recommended for approval . <br /> The Board considered the general standards. <br /> MOTION: Walters moved a positive finding on the <br /> satisfaction of the standard that the project <br /> promotes the public health safety and welfare. <br /> Yuhasz seconded the motion. <br /> Kramer indicated there were substantive questions <br /> regarding public safety because of design, <br /> objections raised by neighbors, objection to the <br /> commercial area and concern with traffic flow. <br /> Walters felt no specific testimony to that effect <br /> had been provided at public hearing. <br /> Best expressed concern with water and <br /> transportation issues, noting the applicant did not <br /> address these problems adequately. He cited school <br /> capacity. <br />