OCPB agenda 050714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T 2 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 54 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 55 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 56 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 57 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 58 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 59 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 60 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 61 62 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 63 64 Pete Hallenbeck: I would like to thank Buddy Hartley for chairing the quarterly public hearing and thank Lisa for 65 chairing the Planning Board meeting. 66 67 AGENDA ITEM 7: CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Class A Special 68 Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on two parcels of 69 property, totaling approximately 52 acres in are, off of Redman Road between the railway and 70 Interstate 85/40 in Cheeks Township. This item was heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly 71 public hearing and was discussed at the March 5, 2014 Planning Board Meeting . 72 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 73 74 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 75 76 Pete Hallenbeck: I have a comment. We have a letter regarding the fields that might be emitting from this and I 77 would like to state I am an electrical engineer, I’ve done a great deal of work in radio and radio fields and other field 78 work to pass FCC specs, and I am comfortable with the statement being submitted. 79 80 Michael Harvey: It is appropriate for a member of the Board to make a motion to approve staff findings beginning on 81 page 22 through page 34 finding in the affirmative as recommeded by staff and then begin deliberation on the 82 information provided on the pages 35 through 37. On page 38, staff has recommended seven conditions on this 83 project. 84 85 MOTION made by Tony Blake to approve the staff findings on pages 22 through 34 to find in the affirmative and non-86 applicable where indicated. Seconded by Herman Staats. 87 VOTE: Unanimous 88 89 MOTION made by Herman Staats to approve Section 5.3.2 on page 35 keeping in mind the conditions on page 38. 90 Seconded by Tony Blake. 91 VOTE: Unanimous 92 93 MOTION made by Tony Blake that the proposal will abide by Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) with the inclusion of the seven 94 recommendations from staff on page 38. Seconded by James Lea. 95 VOTE: Unanimous 96 97 MOTION made by Tony Blake that the proposal will abide by Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) with the inclusion of the seven 98 recommendations from staff on page 38. Seconded by Herman Staats. 99 VOTE: Unanimous 100 101 MOTION made by James Lea to recommend approval of the project with the seven conditions with further indication 102 that we have found there is no competent material or substantial evidence in the record proving the applicant does 103 not meet the UDO. Seconded by Tony Blake. 104 VOTE: Unanimous 105 106 107 12