Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
16 <br /> <br />Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 9 <br />(page 220) of the abstract package. Second. Vote. <br /> <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> <br />NOTE – if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the <br />applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO, <br />the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying <br />the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material <br />and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO. <br /> <br />b. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner <br />Rich to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning <br />the application’s compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange <br />County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 9 (page <br />221) of the abstract package <br /> <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> <br />NOTE – if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the <br />applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO, <br />the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying <br />the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material <br />and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO. <br /> <br />c. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich <br />to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the <br />application’s compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (B) of the Orange <br />County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 9 (page <br />222) of the abstract package. Second. Vote. <br /> <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> <br />NOTE – if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the <br />applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO, <br />the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying <br />the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material <br />and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO. <br /> <br />d. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee <br />to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the <br />application’s compliance with the provisions of 5.9.6 (C) of the Orange County <br />Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 9 (page 223) of <br />the abstract package. Second. Vote. <br /> <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> <br />NOTE – if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the <br />applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,