Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
~ ~~ <br /> . evidence was <br /> presented to refute <br /> the testimony or <br /> evidence entered into <br /> the record concerning <br /> this matter. <br />c) As to the adequacy of <br />evidence on unified The Board voted ~ The Administration <br />control and the suitability unanimously to make a makes a <br />of any proposed X Yes _ No recommendation for an X Yes - No recommendation for <br />agreements, contracts, affirmative finding an affirmative <br />deed restrictions, indicating that the finding based on <br />sureties, dedications, application contains all information contained <br />contributions, sufficient information within the record <br />guarantees, or other outlining the steps that <br />instruments, or the need will be taken to guarantee <br />for such instruments, or the unified control of the <br />for amendments in those project <br />proposed; <br />d) As to the suitability of <br />plans proposed or the <br />desirability of <br />amendments; <br />The applicant proposed <br />Fourteen (14) Design <br />Solutions (i.e. <br />amendments) for this <br />project. Action on these <br />items were as follows: <br /> <br /> At their August 13, 2008 The Administration <br />DESIGN SOLUTION ONE: Board members <br />meeting makes a <br />As outlined on page fifteen X Yes _ No , <br />asked for a re-analysis of X Yes _ No recommendation for <br />(15) of the application this item due to revised an affirmative <br />reading as follows: information concerning finding based on <br /> the ability for these units information contained <br />`The applicant requests to be supported by local within the record <br />a waiver from Section infrastructure (i.e. <br />2.2 of the EDD Design . water/sewer) and based <br />Manual' on clarification of staffs <br />The applicant is requesting original comments and . <br />the ability to allow for multi- recommendations <br />family residential concerning this item <br />development within Districts <br />II and III of the project. The Board voted Five (5) <br />Currently, multi-family to Three (3) to <br />residential land uses are recommend approval of <br />not listed within the the Design Solution as <br />Economic Development presented by the <br />Primary (ED-P) zoning applicant. <br />district, which the subject <br />property is currently zoned. <br />