Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
22 <br /> 1 The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings <br /> 2 of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or <br /> 3 deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows <br /> 4 <br /> 5 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to <br /> 6 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's <br /> 7 compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified <br /> 8 Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 11 <br /> 12 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm <br /> 13 the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance <br /> 14 with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as <br /> 15 detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 18 <br /> 19 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to <br /> 20 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's <br /> 21 compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (B) of the Orange County Unified Development <br /> 22 Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm <br /> 27 the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance <br /> 28 with the provisions of 5.9.6 (C) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as <br /> 29 detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Chair McKee: A motion will (now) need to be made regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 <br /> 34 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as follows <br /> 35 <br /> 36 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to find <br /> 37 there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the <br /> 38 UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if <br /> 39 located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted and <br /> 40 based on the following evidence entered into the record: <br /> 41 <br /> 42 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, <br /> 43 presented at the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br /> 44 • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. <br /> 45 • Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing. <br /> 46 • Attachment 1 of the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing package including <br /> 47 the following: <br /> 48 o Detailed project narrative (pages 13 through 33) <br />