Minutes 09-12-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

22 The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (B) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of 5.9.6 (C) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee: A motion will (now) need to be made regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as follows A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to find there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted and based on the following evidence entered into the record: • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, presented at the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing. • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. • Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing. • Attachment 1 of the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing package including the following: o Detailed project narrative (pages 13 through 33)