ORC agenda 110415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

of County Commissioners andto come back at the February2016 QPH and to post the current law on theplanning website. Commissioner Rich made a friendlyamendment to solicit remarks from Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Price accepted. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that this motion reflectsthe concerns that were mentioned tonight: howmany unrelatedpeople can live in a structure, relationships, residency requirement, andto look at past comments from previousmeetings. Commissioner Jacobs said he meant it to include all comments including those from the May 2015 QPH. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Class A Special Use Permit— Solar Array off WhiteCross Road in Bingham Township (Receipt of Planning Board Recommendation — No Additional Public Comment or TestimonyAllowed) The Board considered receiving thePlanning Board recommendation, closing the public hearing, and making a decision on a Class ASpecial Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application submitted by White Cross Solar LLC and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. William and CarolByron, proposing the development of a solar array in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-PublicUtility of the OrangeCounty Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), approve the recommended Findings of Fact as detailedwithin Attachment 5, andmake a motion approving the SUP. PatMallet, Orange County Current Planning, reviewed this item and all the materials in the abstract. He said page 49, Attachment 5, shows all the findingsof fact, and conditions of approval. He said page 50 reviews all the application components and shows that all the requirements set forth in the UDO were certified as met. He said page 51 shows that all notification requirements were met. He said pages 52-57 show requirementsfor special use permits and solar arrays, noting all findings were in the affirmative. He said page 58 shows the recommendationof the Planning Board, which is consistent with staff's recommendation, noting that all findingsof fact have beenmet. Pat remindedthe Board that the applicant has had extensive conversations with the neighboringproperties, andat thetime of the May Quarterly Public Hearing therewere still two neighbors with concerns about the buffer. He said Item 1 (Attachment 6) speaks to the buffer treatment, which is above and beyond what the code requires. Chair McKee said this is a SUP, and no additional comment or testimony would be allowed. ITEM: 5-b-Attachment 7 A motion wasmade by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to enter Attachments 1-6, and revised Attachment 7 into the minutes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Michael Harvey presented this portion: 41