Browse
Search
12.10.25 BOA Agenda Packet
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Agendas
>
2025
>
12.10.25 BOA Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/4/2025 11:13:20 AM
Creation date
12/4/2025 10:52:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/10/2025
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
352
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
65 Draft <br /> 1 <br /> 2 James Bryan: Yeah, it doesn't matter. There's no magic words for it. But I believe there should be some page <br /> 3 with other conditions. Are there other conditions that staff—your normal ones. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Patrick Mallett: Those were the conditions that were in the slide deck. With initiating the special use permit or <br /> 6 recording the special use permit. I can't remember which. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Leon Meyers: Where are those conditions listed in the agenda package? Somebody help me, there. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Patrick Mallett: I'm trying to figure out how to get back to the main screen here. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Leon Meyers: If we don't have them, I will opine that it is not necessary to have them. They have been standard <br /> 13 by precedent, but legally they are no more enforceable than the UDO themselves, which it just <br /> 14 repeats. So, I was just basing on precedent. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Leon Meyers: Conditions are listed someplace; I just can't find them. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Taylor Perschau: No, so I think the standard proposed conditions would be found in the staff report. I don't think <br /> 19 they are any, in any of these proposed, like, findings of fact, standards, and evidence. Attachment <br /> 20 6, the findings of fact that you just voted on, was prepared by the applicant. So, it's a little different <br /> 21 format, that Attachment 6, than we're used to seeing here. But you can refer to the proposed <br /> 22 conditions referred to in the staff report. They should be there. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Leon Meyers: I see it now. Okay. Then the motion would be to approve the proposed conditions on Page 24 <br /> 25 with the addition of a limit of 22 total clients and staff on the site. Do I hear a motion to that effect? <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Beth Bronson: I'll do it if we can add an opaque buffer to the care facility. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Leon Meyers: Sounds like there might not be support for that. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Greg Niemiroski: I make a motion that we approve the proposed conditions on Page 24 of the application packet, <br /> 32 along with the condition of 22 staff and clients at any given time, I think is the wording. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Leon Meyers: I hear a second to the motion on conditions. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Beth Bronson: Clinical times? <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Greg Niemiroski: What's that? <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Beth Bronson: During clinical times? <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Greg Niemiroski: During clinical times, thank you for that clarification. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Jeff Scott: Second. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Leon Meyers: All right, any discussion on the conditions motion? <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Cy Stober: Just a point of clarification for the record, the friendly amendment offered by Ms. Bronson is part of <br /> 49 the motion of, during clinical time. <br /> 50 <br /> 65 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.